INFORMATION ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS
[Collapse] Wikipedia has helped you -- now you can help Wikipedia. $3,820,490 Our Goal: $6 million Donate Now » Learn More... [Expand] Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project. Donate Now » [Expand] Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project. — Donate Now Civil and political rights From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Civil rights" redirects here. For other uses, see Civil rights (disambiguation). Rights Theoretical distinctions Natural and legal rights
Claim rights and liberty rights
Negative and positive rights
Individual and Group rights
Human rights divisions Three generations
Civil and political
Economic, social and cultural
Right holders Animals · Humans
Men · Women
Fathers · Mothers
Children · Youth · Students
Minorities · LGBT
Other groups of rights Authors' · Digital · Labor
Linguistic · Reproductive
v • d • e Lyndon B. Johnson signs the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lyndon B. Johnson meets with civil rights leaders. Martin Luther King, Jr., Whitney Young, James Farmer, Jr. Part of a series of articles on Discrimination General forms Ageism · Biphobia · Heterophobia · Homophobia · Racism · Sexism
· Speciesism · Religious intolerance
Reverse discrimination · Xenophobia
Specific forms [show]Social Ableism · Adultism
Anti-homelessness · Classism
Elitism · Ephebiphobia · Gerontophobia
Heightism · Heterosexism ·
Homosexism · Lesbophobia ·
Lookism · Mentalism ·
Misandry · Misogyny ·
Pediaphobia · Sizeism · Transphobia
[show]Against ethnic groups American · Arab · Armenian
Blacks · Bosniak · Canadian · Catalan
Chinese · English · European · French
German · Igbo · Indian · Iranian · Irish
Italian · Japanese · Jewish · Korean
Malay · Mexican · Native Americans
Polish · Portuguese · Quebec · Roma
Romanian · Russian · Scottish
Serbian · Spanish · Turkish · Whites
[show]Against beliefs Atheism · Bahá'í · Catholicism
Christianity · Hinduism · Judaism
Mormonism · Islam · Neopaganism
New religious movements
Manifestations Slavery · Racial profiling · Lynching
Hate speech · Hate crime
Genocide (examples) · Ethnocide · Gendercide
Ethnic cleansing · Pogrom · Race war
Religious persecution · Blood libel
Paternalism · Police brutality
Movements [show]Discriminatory Aryanism · Hate groups · Ku Klux Klan
Neo-Nazism · American Nazi Party
South African National Party
[show]Anti-discriminatory Autistic rights · Abolitionism
Children's rights · Civil rights · Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement · Disability rights (Inclusion)
· Feminism · LGBT rights
Masculism · Men's rights · Mother's rights
Women's rights · Women's / Universal suffrage · Youth rights
Apartheid · Group rights · Redlining
Internment · Ethnocracy
Numerus clausus · Ghetto benches Affirmative action
Emancipation · Civil rights
Desegregation · Integration
Equal opportunity · Gender equality
Affirmative action · Group rights
Racial quota · Reservation (India)
Reparation · Forced busing
Employment equity (Canada)
Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)
Anti-miscegenation · Anti-immigration
Alien and Sedition Acts · Jim Crow laws
Test Act · Apartheid laws
Ketuanan Melayu · Nuremberg Laws
Diyya · Anti-homelessness legislation
Anti-discrimination acts ·
Anti-discrimination law ·
14th Amendment · Crime of apartheid
Other forms Afrocentrism · Adultcentrism · Androcentrism · Anthropocentrism ·
Colorism · Cronyism · Ethnocentrism ·
Economic · Genism · Gynocentrism
Linguicism · Nepotism · Triumphalism
Related topics Bigotry · Black supremacy
Diversity · Eugenics · Eurocentrism
Multiculturalism · Oppression
Political correctness · Prejudice
Stereotype · Tolerance and intolerance
Discrimination portal This box: view • talk • edit Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation. Contrast with economic, social and cultural rights. Civil and political rights are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated upon in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The theory of three generations of human rights considers these to be first-generation rights, and most (but not all) of them are considered to be negative rights.
Examples of civil rights and liberties include the right to get redress if injured by another, the right to privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair investigation and trial if suspected of a crime, and more generally-based constitutional rights such as the right to vote, the right to personal freedom, the right to freedom of movement and the right of equal protection.
Laws guaranteeing civil rights may be written down, derived from custom, or implied. In the United States and most continental European countries, civil rights laws are most often written. As civilizations emerged and their laws were formalized through written constitutions, some of the more important civil rights were granted to citizens. When those grants were later found inadequate, civil rights movements emerged as the vehicle for claiming more equal protection for all citizens and advocating new laws to restrict the effects of discrimination.
Implied rights are rights that a court may find to exist even though not expressly guaranteed by written law or custom, on the theory that a written or customary right must necessarily include the implied right. One famous (and controversial) example of a right implied from the U.S. Constitution is the "right to privacy", which the U.S. Supreme Court found to exist in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the court found that state legislation prohibiting or limiting abortion violated this right to privacy. As a rule, state governments can expand civil rights beyond the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot diminish Constitutional rights.
Contents [hide] 1 By region 1.1 United States
2 See also 2.1 Agencies
2.4 Related topics
5 External links
 By region
 United States Civil rights can refer to protection against public (government) and or private sector discrimination. In the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens against many forms of State discrimination, with its due process and equal protection requirements. Civil rights can also refer to protection against private actors or entities. The U.S. Congress subsequently addressed the issue through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sec. 201. which states: (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin or sex. This legislation and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 are constitutional under the Commerce Clause, as the Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to the State. States generally have the power to enact similar legislation, provided that they meet the federal goverment under the doctrine of police powers.
The terms civil rights and civil liberties are often used interchangeably in the United States. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
The United States Constitution recognizes different civil rights than do most other national constitutions. Two examples of civil rights found in the US but rarely (if ever) elsewhere are the right to bear arms (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution) and the right to a jury trial (Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Few nations, not even including a world organization body such as the United Nations, have recognized either of these civil rights. Many nations recognize an individual's civil right to not be executed for murdering another, a civil right not recognized within the US.
 Germany Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (October 2008) The civil rights are declared in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, especially in articles 1 - 19.
 See also
 Agencies U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
 People Malcolm X
Martin Luther King Jr.
John F Kennedy
Robert F Kennedy
Benjamin Chavis Muhammad
Fannie Lou Hamer
Robert A. Levy
Jo Ann Robinson
Frank M. Johnson, Jr.
 Politics American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954)
American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)
Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement
African American history - Black History
List of anti-discrimination acts
LGBT social movements
 Related topics Affirmative Action
Bloody Sunday - 1972, Northern Ireland
Executive Order Number 11478
Teaching for social justice
 Notes ^ Civil Rights Act of 1964
^ Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134 http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm
 References Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)
Hohfeld, W. N., Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, ed. by W.W. Cook (1919); reprint, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1964.
Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books. 1974.
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Revised edition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1999), ISBN 0-674-00077-3.
Smith, Jean Edward & Levine, Herbert M., Civil Liberties & Civil Rights Debated, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1988.
 External links The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.
Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links. Civil Rights entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Andrew Altman
Civil Rights Movement Veterans
Civil Rights Movement
Study of the civil rights movement in America.
[show] • • Human rights [show] Fundamental concepts and philosophies Fiduciary law · Freedoms · Group rights · Natural and legal rights · Negative and positive rights · State sovereignty · Universality · Universal jurisdiction List of Organisations · National institutions [show] • • Legal instruments [show] Declarations Cairo Declaration of Human Rights · Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples · Universal Declaration of Human Rights · American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man · Paris Principles [show] International law UN Convention Against Torture · Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women · Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination · Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities · Convention on the Rights of the Child · UN Migrant Workers' Convention · International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid · International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance · International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights · International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [show] Regional law African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights · European (Conventions on Human Rights · Conventions for the Prevention of Torture · Social Charter) · American Convention on Human Rights · Inter-American Convention (on Forced Disappearance of Persons · to Prevent and Punish Torture · on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women · on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities) [show] International humanitarian law Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide · Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees · Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees · Geneva Conventions · Hague Conventions · Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [show] Concepts that may be considered as human rights Civil and political Freedom from discrimination · Right to life · Right to die · Security of person · Liberty · Freedom of movement · Freedom from slavery · Personhood · Right to bear arms · Equality before the law · Adequate remedy · Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention · Freedom from torture · Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment · Right to a fair trial · Presumption of innocence · Right of asylum · Nationality · Freedom from exile · Privacy · Freedom of thought and conscience · Freedom of religion · Freedom of expression (freedom of information) · Freedom of assembly · Freedom of association · Right to protest · Universal suffrage · Marriage · Family life Economic, social
and cultural Labor rights · Fair remuneration · Equal pay for equal work · Trade union membership · Right to social security · Leisure and rest · Right to work · Right to property (and intellectual) · Right to culture · Right to public participation · Right to education · Right to adequate standard of living · Right to development · Right to health · Right to healthcare · Right to water · Right to food Reproductive Family planning · Reproductive health · Abortion · Genital integrity · Freedom from involuntary female genital cutting War and conflict Civilian · Combatant · Freedom from genocide · Prisoner of war [show]Human rights by continent Africa · Asia · Europe · North America · Oceania · South America
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights" Categories: Discrimination | Rights | Civil rights and liberties | Identity politicsHidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since September 2008 | Articles to be expanded since October 2008 | All articles to be expanded | Wikipedia external links cleanup Views Article
Edit this page
Personal tools Log in / create account
if (window.isMSIE55) fixalpha(); Navigation Main page
Search Interaction About Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Toolbox What links here
Cite this page
Српски / Srpski
This page was last modified on 18 December 2008, at 15:42.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
if (window.runOnloadHook) runOnloadHook();
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal
Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21 42 USC
CHAPTER 21 -
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER VI - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
2000e-1. Applicability to foreign and religious employment.
2000e-2. Unlawful employment practices.
2000e-3. Other unlawful employment practices.
2000e-4. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
2000e-5. Enforcement provisions.
2000e-6. Civil actions by the Attorney General.
2000e-7. Effect on State laws.
2000e-9. Conduct of hearings and investigations pursuant to
section 161 of title 29.
2000e-10. Posting of notices; penalties.
2000e-11. Veterans' special rights or preference.
2000e-12. Regulations; conformity of regulations with
administrative procedure provisions; reliance on
interpretations and instructions of Commission.
2000e-13. Application to personnel of Commission of sections
111 and 1114 of title 18; punishment for
violation of section 1114 of title 18.
2000e-14. Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council;
establishment; composition; duties; report to
President and Congress.
2000e-15. Presidential conferences; acquaintance of
leadership with provisions for employment rights
and obligations; plans for fair administration;
2000e-16. Employment by Federal Government.
2000e-16a. Short title; purpose; definition.
2000e-16b. Discriminatory practices prohibited.
2000e-16c. Coverage of previously exempt State employees.
2000e-17. Procedure for denial, withholding, termination, or
suspension of Government contract subsequent to
acceptance by Government of affirmative action
plan of employer; time of acceptance of plan.
Sec. 2000e. Definitions
For the purposes of this subchapter -
(a) The term "person" includes one or more individuals,
governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor
unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal
representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts,
unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under
title 11, or receivers.
(b) The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry
affecting commerce who has fifteen 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 any department or agency of the District of
Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive
service (as defined in section 2102 of title 5), or (2) a bona
fide private membership club (other than a labor organization)
which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of title 26,
except that during the first year after March 24, 1972, persons
having fewer than twenty-five employees (and their agents) shall
not be considered employers.
(c) The term "employment agency" means any person regularly
undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for
an employer or to procure for employees opportunities to work for
an employer and includes an agent of such a person.
(d) The term "labor organization" means a labor organization
engaged in an industry affecting commerce, and any agent of such
an organization, and includes any organization of any kind, any
agency, or employee representation committee, group, association,
or plan so engaged in which employees participate and which
exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with
employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment, and any
conference, general committee, joint or system board, or joint
council so engaged which is subordinate to a national or
international labor organization.
(e) A labor organization shall be deemed to be engaged in an
industry affecting commerce if (1) it maintains or operates a
hiring hall or hiring office which procures employees for an
employer or procures for employees opportunities to work for an
employer, or (2) the number of its members (or, where it is a
labor organization composed of other labor organizations or their
representatives, if the aggregate number of the members of such
other labor organization) is (A) twenty-five or more during the
first year after March 24, 1972, or (B) fifteen or more
thereafter, and such labor organization -
(1) is the certified representative of employees under the
provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended [29
U.S.C. 151 et seq.], or the Railway Labor Act, as amended [45
U.S.C. 151 et seq.];
(2) although not certified, is a national or international
labor organization or a local labor organization recognized or
acting as the representative of employees of an employer or
employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce; or
(3) has chartered a local labor organization or subsidiary
body which is representing or actively seeking to represent
employees of employers within the meaning of paragraph (1) or
(4) has been chartered by a labor organization representing
or actively seeking to represent employees within the meaning
of paragraph (1) or (2) as the local or subordinate body
through which such employees may enjoy membership or become
affiliated with such labor organization; or
(5) is a conference, general committee, joint or system
board, or joint council subordinate to a national or
international labor organization, which includes a labor
organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of any of the preceding paragraphs of this
(f) The term "employee" means an individual employed by an
employer, except that the term "employee" shall not include any
person elected to public office in any State or political
subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any
person chosen by such officer to be on such officer's personal
staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate
adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or
legal powers of the office. The exemption set forth in the
preceding sentence shall not include employees subject to the
civil service laws of a State government, governmental agency or
political subdivision. With respect to employment in a foreign
country, such term includes an individual who is a citizen of the
(g) The term "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce,
transportation, transmission, or communication among the several
States; or between a State and any place outside thereof; or
within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United
States; or between points in the same State but through a point
(h) The term "industry affecting commerce" means any activity,
business, or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute
would hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce
and includes any activity or industry "affecting commerce" within
the meaning of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959 [29 U.S.C. 401 et seq.], and further includes any
governmental industry, business, or activity.
(i) The term "State" includes a State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, Wake Island, the Canal Zone, and Outer Continental
Shelf lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [43
U.S.C. 1331 et seq.].
(j) The term "religion" includes all aspects of religious
observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer
demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an
employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or
practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's
(k) The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex"
include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women
affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions
shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes,
including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as
other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or
inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this
title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection
shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance
benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would
be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where
medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided,
That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing
abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in
regard to abortion.
(l) The term "complaining party" means the Commission, the
Attorney General, or a person who may bring an action or
proceeding under this subchapter.
(m) The term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of
production and persuasion.
(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 2000e-16 of this title.
Sec. 2000e-1. Applicability to foreign and religious employment
(a) Inapplicability of subchapter to certain aliens and employees
of religious entities
This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to
the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious
corporation, association, educational institution, or society with
respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion
to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation,
association, educational institution, or society of its activities.
(b) Compliance with statute as violative of foreign law
It shall not be unlawful under section 2000e-2 or 2000e-3 of this
title for an employer (or a corporation controlled by an employer),
labor organization, employment agency, or joint labor-management
committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or
retraining (including on-the-job training programs) to take any
action otherwise prohibited by such section, with respect to an
employee in a workplace in a foreign country if compliance with
such section would cause such employer (or such corporation), such
organization, such agency, or such committee to violate the law of
the foreign country in which such workplace is located.
(c) Control of corporation incorporated in foreign country
(1) If an employer controls a corporation whose place of
incorporation is a foreign country, any practice prohibited by
section 2000e-2 or 2000e-3 of this title engaged in by such
corporation shall be presumed to be engaged in by such employer.
(2) Sections 2000e-2 and 2000e-3 of this title shall not apply
with respect to the foreign operations of an employer that is a
foreign person not controlled by an American employer.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, the determination of whether
an employer controls a corporation shall be based on -
(A) the interrelation of operations;
(B) the common management;
(C) the centralized control of labor relations; and
(D) the common ownership or financial control,
of the employer and the corporation.
Sec. 2000e-2. Unlawful employment practices
(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.
(b) Employment agency practices
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) Labor organization practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor
(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
applicants for 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) Training programs
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.
(e) Businesses or enterprises with personnel qualified on basis of
religion, sex, or national origin; educational institutions with
personnel of particular religion
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it
shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or
refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to
classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any
individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint
labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other
training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual
in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national
origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national
origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably
necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or
enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice
for a school, college, university, or other educational institution
or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a
particular religion if such school, college, university, or other
educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or
in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a
particular religion or by a particular religious corporation,
association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school,
college, university, or other educational institution or
institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a
(f) Members of Communist Party or Communist-action or
As used in this subchapter, the phrase "unlawful employment
practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure
taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor-management
committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who
is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any
other organization required to register as a Communist-action or
Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive
Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities
Control Act of 1950 [50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.].
(g) National security
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall
not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or
refuse to hire and employ any individual for any position, for an
employer to discharge any individual from any position, or for an
employment agency to fail or refuse to refer any individual for
employment in any position, or for a labor organization to fail or
refuse to refer any individual for employment in any position, if -
(1) the occupancy of such position, or access to the premises
in or upon which any part of the duties of such position is
performed or is to be performed, is subject to any requirement
imposed in the interest of the national security of the United
States under any security program in effect pursuant to or
administered under any statute of the United States or any
Executive order of the President; and
(2) such individual has not fulfilled or has ceased to fulfill
(h) Seniority or merit system; quantity or quality of production;
ability tests; compensation based on sex and authorized by
minimum wage provisions
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall
not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply
different standards of compensation, or different terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide
seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by
quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in
different locations, provided that such differences are not the
result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be an unlawful
employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the
results of any professionally developed ability test provided that
such test, its administration or action upon the results is not
designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color,
religion, sex or national origin. It shall not be an unlawful
employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to
differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of
the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such
employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of
section 206(d) of title 29.
(i) Businesses or enterprises extending preferential treatment to
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall apply to any business
or enterprise on or near an Indian reservation with respect to any
publicly announced employment practice of such business or
enterprise under which a preferential treatment is given to any
individual because he is an Indian living on or near a reservation.
(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.
(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases
(1)(A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact
is established under this subchapter only if -
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and
the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice
is job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity; or
(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in
subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment
practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative
(B)(i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment
practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph
(A)(i), the complaining party shall demonstrate that each
particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate
impact, except that if the complaining party can demonstrate to the
court that the elements of a respondent's decisionmaking process
are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking
process may be analyzed as one employment practice.
(ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment
practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall
not be required to demonstrate that such practice is required by
(C) The demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall
be in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with
respect to the concept of "alternative employment practice".
(2) A demonstration that an employment practice is required by
business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of
intentional discrimination under this subchapter.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, a
rule barring the employment of an individual who currently and
knowingly uses or possesses a controlled substance, as defined in
schedules I and II of section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), other than the use or possession of a drug
taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional,
or any other use or possession authorized by the Controlled
Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.] or any other provision of
Federal law, shall be considered an unlawful employment practice
under this subchapter only if such rule is adopted or applied with
an intent to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or
(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.
(m) Impermissible consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin in employment practices
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an unlawful
employment practice is established when the complaining party
demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though
other factors also motivated the practice.
(n) Resolution of challenges to employment practices implementing
litigated or consent judgments or orders
(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as
provided in paragraph (2), an employment practice that implements
and is within the scope of a litigated or consent judgment or order
that resolves a claim of employment discrimination under the
Constitution or Federal civil rights laws may not be challenged
under the circumstances described in subparagraph (B).
(B) A practice described in subparagraph (A) may not be
challenged in a claim under the Constitution or Federal civil
rights laws -
(i) by a person who, prior to the entry of the judgment or
order described in subparagraph (A), had -
(I) actual notice of the proposed judgment or order
sufficient to apprise such person that such judgment or order
might adversely affect the interests and legal rights of such
person and that an opportunity was available to present
objections to such judgment or order by a future date certain;
(II) a reasonable opportunity to present objections to such
judgment or order; or
(ii) by a person whose interests were adequately represented by
another person who had previously challenged the judgment or
order on the same legal grounds and with a similar factual
situation, unless there has been an intervening change in law or
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to -
(A) alter the standards for intervention under rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or apply to the rights of
parties who have successfully intervened pursuant to such rule in
the proceeding in which the parties intervened;
(B) apply to the rights of parties to the action in which a
litigated or consent judgment or order was entered, or of members
of a class represented or sought to be represented in such
action, or of members of a group on whose behalf relief was
sought in such action by the Federal Government;
(C) prevent challenges to a litigated or consent judgment or
order on the ground that such judgment or order was obtained
through collusion or fraud, or is transparently invalid or was
entered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction; or
(D) authorize or permit the denial to any person of the due
process of law required by the Constitution.
(3) Any action not precluded under this subsection that
challenges an employment consent judgment or order described in
paragraph (1) shall be brought in the court, and if possible before
the judge, that entered such judgment or order. Nothing in this
subsection shall preclude a transfer of such action pursuant to
section 1404 of title 28.
Sec. 2000e-3. Other unlawful employment practices
(a) Discrimination for making charges, testifying, assisting, or
participating in enforcement proceedings
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for
employment, for an employment agency, or joint labor-management
committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or
retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate
against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate
against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because he
has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by
this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified,
assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.
(b) Printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating
prohibited preference, limitation, specification, or
discrimination; occupational qualification exception
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer,
labor organization, employment agency, or joint labor-management
committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or
retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to print or
publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or
advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or
membership in or any classification or referral for employment by
such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or
referral for employment by such an employment agency, or relating
to admission to, or employment in, any program established to
provide apprenticeship or other training by such a joint
labor-management committee, indicating any preference, limitation,
specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement
may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or
discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when
religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational
qualification for employment.
Civil RightsFirst published Mon Feb 3, 2003; substantive revision Tue Dec 11, 2007 In contemporary political thought, the term ‘civil rights’ is indissolubly linked to the struggle for equality of American blacks during the 1950s and 60s. The aim of that struggle was to secure the status of equal citizenship in a liberal democratic state. Civil rights are the basic legal rights a person must possess in order to have such a status. They are the rights that constitute free and equal citizenship and include personal, political, and economic rights. No contemporary thinker of significance holds that such rights can be legitimately denied to a person on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or disability. Antidiscrimination principles are thus a common ground in contemporary political discussion. However, there is much disagreement in the scholarly literature over the basis and scope of these principles and the ways in which they ought to be implemented in law and policy. In addition, debate exists over the legitimacy of including sexual orientation among the other categories traditionally protected by civil rights law, and there is an emerging literature examining issues of how best to understand discrimination based on disability.
1. Rights1.1 The Civil-Political Distinction1.2 Three
Generations of Rights1.3 Blacks and Native
Americans2. Free and Equal Citizenship2.1 Public
and Private Autonomy2.2 Ancient and Modern
Citizenship3. Discrimination3.1 The Idea of
Discrimination3.2 Why Discrimination is Unjust3.3
Justifying Antidiscrimination Law3.4 The Existence
of Discrimination4. Sexual Orientation5.
Disability5.1 The Medical and Social Models5.2 Race,
Disability, and Discrimination5.3 Contractarianism
and the Disabled6. Legal Cases and
1. Rights 1.1 The Civil-Political Distinction Until the middle of the 20th century, civil rights were usually distinguished from ‘political rights’. The former included the rights to own property, make and enforce contracts, receive due process of law, and worship one's religion. Civil rights also covered freedom of speech and the press (Amar 1998: 216-17). But they did not include the right to hold public office, vote, or to testify in court. The latter were political rights, reserved to adult males.
The civil-political distinction was conceptually and morally unstable insofar as it was used to sort citizens into different categories. It was part of an ideology that classified women as citizens who were entitled to certain rights but not to the full panoply to which men were entitled. As that ideology broke down, the civil-political distinction began to unravel. The idea that a certain segment of the adult citizenry could legitimately possess one bundle of rights, while another segment would have to make do with an inferior bundle, became increasingly implausible. In the end, the civil-political distinction could not survive the cogency of the principle that all citizens of a liberal democracy were entitled, in Rawls's words, to “a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties” (2001: 42).
It may be possible to retain the distinction strictly as one for sorting rights, rather than sorting citizens (Marshall, 1965; Waldron 1993). But it is difficult to give a convincing account of the principles by which the sorting is done. It seems neater and cleaner simply to think of civil rights as the general category of basic rights needed for free and equal citizenship. Yet, it remains a matter of contention which claims are properly conceived as belonging to the category of civil rights (Wellman, 1999). Analysts have distinguished among “three generations” of civil rights claims and have argued over which claims ought to be treated as true matters of civil rights.
1.2 Three Generations of Rights The claims for which the American civil rights movement initially fought belong to the first generation of civil rights claims. Those claims included the pre-20th century set of civil rights — such as the rights to receive due process and to make and enforce contracts — but covered political rights as well. However, many thinkers and activists argued that these first-generation claims were too narrow to define the scope of free and equal citizenship. They contended that such citizenship could be realized only by honoring an additional set of claims, including rights to food, shelter, medical care, and employment. This second generation of economic “welfare rights,” the argument went, helped to ensure that the political, economic, and legal rights belonging to the first generation could be made effective in protecting the vital interests of citizens and were not simply paper guarantees.
Yet, some scholars have argued that these second-generation rights should not be subsumed under the category of civil rights. Thus, Cranston writes, “The traditional ‘political and civil rights’ can…be readily secured by legislation. Since the rights are for the most part rights against government interference…the legislation needed had to do no more than restrain the executive's own arm. This is no longer the case when we turn to the ‘right to work’, the ‘right to social security’ and so forth” (1967: 50-51).
However, Cranston fails to recognize that such first-generation rights as due process and the right to vote also require substantial government action and the investment of considerable public resources. Holmes and Sunstein (1999) have made the case that all of the first-generation civil rights require government to do more than simply “restrain the executive's own arm.” It seems problematic to think that a significant distinction can be drawn between first and second-generation rights on the ground that the former, but not the latter, simply require that government refrain from interfering with the actions of persons. Moreover, even if some viable distinction could be drawn along those lines, it would not follow that second-generation rights should be excluded from the category of civil rights. The reason is that the relevant standard for inclusion as a civil right is whether a claim is part of the package of rights constitutive of free and equal citizenship. There is no reason to think that only those claims that can be “readily secured by legislation” belong to that package. And the increasingly dominant view is that welfare rights are essential to adequately satisfying the conditions of free and equal citizenship (Marshall 1965; Waldron 1993; Sunstein 2001).
In the United States, however, the law does not treat issues of economic well-being per se as civil rights matters. Only insofar as economic inequality or deprivation is linked to race, gender or some other traditional category of antidiscrimination law is it considered to be a question of civil rights. In legal terms, poverty is not a “suspect classification.” On the other hand, welfare rights are protected as a matter of constitutional principle in other democracies. For example, section 75 of the Danish Constitution provides that “any person unable to support himself or his dependents shall, where no other person is responsible for his or their maintenance, be entitled to receive public assistance.” And the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights provides that the state parties to the agreement “recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.”
A third generation of claims has received considerable attention in recent years, what may be broadly termed “rights of cultural membership.” These include language rights for members of cultural minorities and the rights of indigenous peoples to preserve their cultural institutions and practices and to exercise some measure of political autonomy. There is some overlap with the first-generation rights, such as that of religious liberty, but rights of cultural membership are broader and more controversial.
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that third-generation rights ought to be protected:
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language. Similarly, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the language rights of minorities and section 27 provides that “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” In the United States, there is no analogous protection of language rights or multiculturalism, although constitutional doctrine does recognize native Indian tribes as “domestic dependent nations” with some attributes of political self-rule, such as sovereign immunity (Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe).
There is substantial philosophical controversy over the legitimacy and scope of rights of cultural membership. Kymlicka has argued that the liberal commitment to protect the equal rights of individuals requires society to protect such rights (1989; 1994; 1995). He argues that “granting special representational rights, land claims, or language rights to a minority….can be seen as putting the various groups on a more equal footing, by reducing the extent to which the smaller group is vulnerable to the larger” (1995: 36-37). Such special rights do not amount to “group rights,” in the sense of granting the group any power or priority over the individual. Rather, the rights “compensate for unequal circumstances which put the members of minority cultures at a systemic disadvantage in the cultural marketplace” (1994: 25).
Waldron (1995) criticizes Kymlicka for exaggerating the importance for the individual of membership in her particular culture and for underestimating the mutability and interpenetration of cultures. Individual freedom requires some cultural context of choice, but it does not require the preservation of the particular context in which the individual finds herself. Liberal individuals must be free to evaluate their culture and to distance themselves from it.
Kukathas criticizes Kymlicka for implying that the liberal commitment to the protection of individual rights is insufficient to treat the interests of minorities with equal consideration. Kukathas contends that “we need to reassert the importance of individual liberty or individual rights and question the idea that cultural minorities have collective rights” (1995: 230). But the system of uniform legal rules that he endorses would keep the state from intervening even when a minority culture inflicts significant harm on its more vulnerable members, e.g., when cultural norms strongly discourage females from seeking the same educational and career opportunities as males.
Barry (2001) asserts that “there are certain rights against oppression, exploitation, and injury, to which every single human being is entitled to lay claim, and…appeals to cultural diversity and pluralism under no circumstances trump the value of basic liberal rights” (132-33). The legal system should protect those rights by impartially imposing the same rules on all persons, regardless of their cultural or religious membership. Barry allows for a few exceptions, such as the accommodation of a Sikh boy whose turban violated school dress regulations, but thinks that the conditions under which such exceptions will be justified “are rarely satisfied” (2001: 62). Barry's position reflects and elaborates Gitlin's earlier condemnation of views advocating distinctive rights for cultural and ethnic minorities. Gitlin condemned such views on the ground that they represent a “swerve from civil rights, emphasizing a universal condition and universalizable rights, to cultural separatism, emphasizing difference and distinct needs” (1995: 153).
At the other end of the spectrum, Taylor (1994) argues for a form of communitarianism that attaches intrinsic importance to the survival of cultures. In his view, differential treatment under the law for certain practices is sometimes justifiable on the ground that such treatment is important for keeping a culture alive. Taylor goes as far as to claim that cultural survival can sometimes trump basic individual rights, such as freedom of speech. Accordingly, he defends legal restrictions on the use of English in Quebec, invoking the survival of Quebec's French culture.
However, it is unclear why intrinsic value should attach to cultural survival as such. Following John Dewey (1939), Kymlicka (1995) rightly emphasizes that liberty would have little or no value to the individual apart from the life-options and meaningful choices provided by culture. But both thinkers also reasonably contend that human interests are ultimately the interests of individual human beings. In light of that contention, it would seem that a culture that could not gain the uncoerced and undeceived adherence of enough individuals to survive would have no moral claim to its continuation. Legal restrictions on basic liberties that are designed to perpetuate a given culture have the cart before the horse: persons should have their basic liberties protected first, as those protections serve the most important human interests. Only when those interests are protected can we then say that a culture should survive, not because the culture is intrinsically valuable, but rather because it has the uncoerced adherence of a sufficient number of persons.
1.3 Blacks and Native Americans The treatment of blacks under slavery and Jim Crow presents a history of injustice and cultural annihilation that is similar in some respects to the treatment of Native Americans. However, civil rights principles played a very different role in the struggle of Native Americans against the injustices perpetrated against them by whites.
Civil rights principles demand inclusion of the individuals from a disadvantaged group in the major institutions of society on an equal basis with the individuals who are already treated as full citizens. The principles do not require that the disadvantaged group be given a right to govern its own affairs. A right of political self-determination, in contrast, demands that a group have the freedom to order its affairs at it sees fit and, to that extent, political self-determination has a separatist aspect, even if something less than complete sovereignty is involved.
The pursuit of civil rights by American blacks overshadowed the pursuit of political self-determination. The fact that American blacks lacked any territory of their own on which they could rule themselves favored the civil rights strategy. Moreover, the civil war amendments, and the civil rights laws that accompanied them, were meant to incorporate black Americans into the body politic as free and equal citizens. Although this effort was defeated by Jim Crow, the principle of citizenship for blacks had been enshrined in law. And so, in their struggle to defeat Jim Crow, blacks could and did repeatedly demand that white Americans live up to their constitutional promise of equality.
In contrast, for Native Americans, the pursuit of political-self-determination, in the form of tribal sovereignty, overshadowed the pursuit of civil rights. Even after the coerced tribal removals and federal efforts to impose regimes of individual land ownership, tribes still retained some territorial basis on which a measure of self-rule was possible. Moreover, a line of Supreme Court decisions dating to the early 1800's held that Indian tribes possessed some — albeit very limited — inherent powers of sovereignty (Ex Parte Crow Dog). Accordingly, pursuit of political self-determination rather than civil-rights protections seemed, in the eyes of many Indians, to be the most reasonable strategy for counteracting white oppression.
During the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's, there was some tension between Native Americans and blacks due to their different attitudes toward self-determination and civil rights. Some Native Americans looked askance at the desire of blacks for inclusion and thought the desire hopelessly naïve (Deloria, 1988: 169-70). And activists emerged from the black power movement who had a similar view of the effort at racial inclusion and who called for a form of political self-determination. Such a call was part of a tradition of black nationalism that can still be found today in the United States (Shelby, 2006, critiquing black nationalism). Nonetheless, in the United States, unlike civil rights principles, black nationalist principles have not become part of the law.
In 1968, Congress enacted an Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA). The act extended the reach of certain individual constitutional rights against government to intratribal affairs. Tribal governments would for the first time be bound by constitutional principles concerning free speech, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and equal protection, among others. Freedom of religion was omitted from the law as a result of the protests of the Pueblo, whose political arrangements were theocratic, but the law was a major incursion on tribal self-determination, nonetheless (Norgren and Shattuck, 1993: 169).
A married pueblo woman brought suit in federal court, claiming that the tribe's marriage ordinances constituted sex discrimination against her and other women of the tribe, thus violating the ICRA. (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez) The ordinances excluded from tribal membership the children of a Pueblo woman who married outside of the tribe, while the children of men who married outsiders were counted as members. Martinez had initially sought relief in tribal forums, to no avail, before turning to the federal courts. The Supreme Court held that federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the case: the substantive provisions of the ICRA did apply to the Pueblo, but the inherent sovereign powers of the tribe meant that the tribal government had exclusive jurisdiction in the case. The ruling has been both questioned and defended by feminist legal scholars (MacKinnon, 1987; Valencia-Weber 2004).
In contrast to the United States, the Canadian Indian Act provides that men and women are to be treated equally when it comes to the band membership of their children (Johnston, 1995: 190). This law and the Santa Clara case raise the general issue of whether and when it is justifiable for a liberal state to impose liberal principles on illiberal (or not fully liberal) political communities that had been involuntary incorporated into the larger state. Addressing this issue, Kymlicka (1995) argues that "there is relatively little scope for legitimate coercive interference" because efforts to impose liberal principles tend to be counterproductive, provoking the charge that they amount to "paternalistic colonialism." Moreover, "liberal institutions can only really work if liberal beliefs have been internalized." Kymlicka concludes, then, that liberals on the outside of an illiberal culture should support the efforts of those insiders who seek reform but should generally stop short of coercively imposing liberal principles (1995: 167). At the same time, Kymlicka acknowledges that there are cases in which a liberal state is clearly permitted to impose its laws, citing with approval the decision in a case that involved the application of Canadian law to a tribe that had kidnapped a member and forced him to undergo an initiation ceremony (44).
Applying Kymlicka's general line of thinking might prove contentious in many cases. Consider Santa Clara. His arguments could be used to support the decision in that case: the exercise of jurisdiction might be deemed “paternalistic colonialism.” But one might argue, instead, that jurisdiction is needed to vindicate the basic liberal right of gender equality. However, it does seem that, if a wrong akin to kidnapping or worse is required before federal courts can legitimately step in, then the Santa Clara case falls short of meeting such a requirement. The argument might then shift to whether the requirement imposes an excessively high hurdle for the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, Kymlicka's approach might not settle the disagreement over Santa Clara, but it does provide a very reasonable normative framework in terms of which liberal thought can address the difficult issues presented by the case and, more generally, by the problem of extending liberal principles to Native American tribes.
2. Free and Equal Citizenship Civil rights are those rights that constitute free and equal citizenship in a liberal democracy. Such citizenship has two main dimensions, both tied to the idea of autonomy. Accordingly, civil rights are essentially connected to securing the autonomy of the citizen.
2.1 Public and Private Autonomy To be a free and equal citizen is, in part, to have those legal guarantees that are essential to fully adequate participation in public discussion and decisionmaking. A citizen has a right to an equal voice and an equal vote. In addition, she has the rights needed to protect her “moral independence,” that is, her ability to decide for herself what gives meaning and value to her life and to take responsibility for living in conformity with her values (Dworkin, 1995: 25). Accordingly, equal citizenship has two main dimensions: “public autonomy,” i.e., the individual's freedom to participate in the formation of public opinion and society's collective decisions; and “private autonomy,” i.e., the individual's freedom to decide what way of life is most worth pursuing (Habermas: 1996). The importance of these two dimensions of citizenship stem from what Rawls calls the “two moral powers” of personhood: the capacity for a sense of justice and the capacity for a conception of the good (1995: 164; 2001: 18). A person stands as an equal citizen when society and its political system give equal and due weight to the interest each citizen has in the development and exercise of those capacities.
2.2 Ancient and Modern Citizenship The idea of equal citizenship can be traced back to Aristotle's political philosophy and his claim that true citizens take turns ruling and being ruled (Politics: 1252a16). In modern society, the idea has been transformed, in part by the development of representative government and its system of elections (Manin: 1997). For modern liberal thought, by contrast, citizenship is no longer a matter of having a direct and equal share in governance, but rather consists in a legal status that confers a certain package of rights that guarantee to an individual a voice, a vote, and a zone of private autonomy. The other crucial differences between modern liberalism and earlier political theories concern the range of human beings who are regarded as having the capacity for citizenship and the scope of private autonomy to which each citizen is entitled as a matter of basic right. Modern liberal theory is more expansive on both counts than its ancient and medieval forerunners.
It is true that racist and sexist assumptions plagued liberal theory well into the twentieth-century. However, two crucial liberal ideas have made possible an internal critique of racism, sexism, and other illegitimate forms of hierarchy. The first is that society is constructed by humans, a product of human will, and not some preordained natural or God-given order. The second is that social arrangements need to be justified before the court of reason to each individual who lives under them and who is capable of reasoning. The conjunction of these ideas made possible an egalitarianism that was not available to ancient and medieval political thought, although this liberal egalitarianism emerged slowly out of the racist and sexist presuppositions that infused much liberal thinking until recent decades.
Many contemporary theorists have argued that taking liberal egalitarianism to its logical conclusion requires the liberal state to pursue a program of deliberately reconstructing informal social norms and cultural meanings. They contend that social stigma and denigration still operate powerfully to deny equal citizenship to groups such as blacks, women, and gays. Accordingly, Kernohan has argued that “the egalitarian liberal state should play an activist role in cultural reform” (1998: xi), and Koppelman has taken a similar position: “the antidiscrimination project seeks to reconstruct social reality to eliminate or marginalize the shared meanings, practices and institutions that unjustifiably single out certain groups of citizens for stigma and disadvantage” (1996: 8). This position is deeply at odds with at least some of the ideas that lie behind the advocacy of third-generation civil rights. Those rights ground claims of cultural survival, whether or not a culture's meanings, practices and institutions stigmatize and disadvantage the members of some ascriptively-defined group. The egalitarian proponents of cultural reconstruction can be understood as advocating a different kind of “third-generation” for the civil rights movement: one in which the state, having attacked legal, political and economic barriers to equal citizenship, now takes on cultural obstacles.
A cultural-reconstruction phase of the civil rights movement would run contrary to Kukathas's argument that it is too dangerous to license the state to intervene against cultures that engage in social tyranny (2001). It also raises questions about whether state-supported cultural reconstruction would violate basic liberties, such as freedom of private association. The efforts of New Jersey to apply antidiscrimination law to the Boy Scouts, a group which discriminates against gays, illustrates the potential problems. The Supreme Court invalidated those efforts on grounds of free association (Boys Scouts v. Dale). Nonetheless, it may be necessary to reconceive the scope and limits of some basic liberties if the principle of free and equal citizenship is followed through to its logical conclusions.
3. Discrimination In liberal democracies, civil rights claims are typically conceptualized in terms of the idea of discrimination (Brest, 1976). Persons who make such claims assert that they are the victims of discrimination. In order to gain an understanding of current discussion and debate regarding civil rights, it is important to disentangle the various descriptive and normative senses of ‘discrimination’.
3.1 The Idea of Discrimination In one of its central descriptive senses, ‘discrimination’ means the differential treatment of persons, however justifiable or unjustifiable the treatment may be. In a distinct but still primarily descriptive sense, it means the disadvantageous (or, less commonly, the advantageous) treatment of some persons relative to others. This sense is not purely descriptive in that an evaluative judgment is involved in determining what counts as a disadvantage. But the sense is descriptive insofar as no evaluative judgment is made regarding the justifiability of the disadvantageous treatment.
In addition to its descriptive senses, there are two normative senses of ‘discrimination’. In the first, it means any differential treatment of the individual that is morally objectionable. In the second sense, ‘discrimination’ means the wrongful denial or abridgement of the civil rights of some persons in a context where others enjoy their full set of rights. The two normative senses are distinct because there can be morally objectionable forms of differential treatment that do not involve the wrongful denial or abridgement of civil rights. If I treat one waiter rudely and another nicely, because one is a New York Yankees fan and the other is a Boston Red Sox fan, then I have acted in a morally objectionable way but have not violated anyone's civil rights.
Discrimination that does deny civil rights is a double wrong against its victims. The denial of civil rights is by itself a wrong, whether or not others have such rights. When others do have such rights, the denial of civil rights to persons who are entitled to them involves the additional wrong of unjustified differential treatment. On the other hand, if everyone is denied his civil rights, then the idea of discrimination would be misapplied to the situation. A despot who oppresses everyone equally is not guilty of discrimination in any of its senses. In contrast, discrimination is a kind of wrong that is found in systems that are liberal democratic but imperfectly so: it is the characteristic injustice of liberal democracy.
The first civil rights law, enacted in 1866, embodied the idea of discrimination as wrongful denial of civil rights to some while others enjoyed their full set of rights. It declared that “all persons” in the United States were to have “the same right…to make and enforce contracts…and to the full and equal benefit of all laws…as is enjoyed by white citizens” (42 U.S.C.A. 1981). The premise was that whites enjoyed a fully adequate scheme of civil rights and that everyone else who was entitled to citizenship was to be legally guaranteed that same set of rights.
It is a notable feature of civil rights law that its prohibitions do not protect only citizens. Any person within a given jurisdiction, citizen or not, can claim the protection of the law, at least within certain limits. Thus, noncitizens are protected by fair housing and equal employment statutes, among other antidiscrimination laws. Noncitizens can also claim the legal protections of due process if charged with a crime. Even illegal aliens have limited due process rights if they are within the legal jurisdiction of the country. On the other hand, noncitizens cannot claim under U.S. law that the denial of political rights amounts to wrongful discrimination. Noncitizens can vote in local and regional elections in certain countries (Benhabib, 2006: 46), but the denial of equal political rights would seem to be central to the very status of noncitizen.
The application of much of civil rights law to noncitizens indicates that many of the rights in question are deeper than simply the rights that constitute citizenship. They are genuine human rights to which every person is entitled, whether she is in a location where she has a right to citizenship or not. And civil rights issues are, for that reason, regarded as broader in scope than issues regarding the treatment of citizens.
3.2 Why Discrimination is Unjust Given the principle of equal citizenship, discrimination in the sense of the denial of civil rights is an injustice that denies certain citizens the rights to which they are entitled. But it is not obvious that the principle entails that discrimination in the sense of differential treatment is unjust, even if the differential treatment disadvantages persons based on their race, sex, or another paradigmatic civil rights category. The common view is that such differential treatment is (at least prima facie) an injustice that violates the basic rights of the individual. In other words, the view is that it is a civil right to not be treated disadvantageously on account of one's race or sex.
An argument for the soundness of the common view cannot simply invoke existing laws that ban discrimination based on race, sex, and similar categories. The point of the common view is that the injustice of racial and gender discrimination explains why there ought to be those laws. What is required is an account that shows why such discrimination (staying with the two paradigm categories of race and sex for the sake of simplicity) is an injustice.
There are two main approaches to providing an account of the injustice of discrimination based on race and sex. The first is “individualistic” in that it seeks to explain the injustice in a way that abstracts from the broader social and political context in which the differential treatment occurs. The second is “systemic” in that it seeks to explain the injustice in a way that links the differential treatment to social patterns that reduce, or threaten to reduce, the members of certain groups to second-class citizenship.
3.2.1 Individualistic Accounts Kahlenberg asserts the popular view that race discrimination is unjust because it treats a person on the basis of a characteristic that is immutable or beyond her control (1996: 54-55). But Boxill rejects such a view, arguing that there are many instances in which it is justifiable to treat persons based on features that are beyond their control (1992: 12-17). Denying blind people a driver's license or persons with little athletic ability a place on the basketball team is not an injustice to such individuals. Moreover, Boxill notes that, if scientists developed a drug that could change a person's skin color, it would still be unjust to discriminate against people because of their skin color (16).
Flew argues that racism is unjust because it treats differently persons who “are in all relevant respects the same” (1990: 63 — emphasis in original). The defining characteristics of a race “are strictly superficial and properly irrelevant to all, or almost all, questions of social status and employability” (63-64). But if ‘relevant’ means ‘rationally related’, then it does not appear to be a requirement of justice that a person always treat others only on the basis of relevant characteristics (cf. Gardner, 1998: 168). The idea that it is such a requirement rests on the false premise that all morally bad treatment is a violation of justice and rights. If I give a waiter a poor tip because he is not a fan of my favorite sports team, then I have behaved badly but have not violated the waiter's rights or committed an injustice against him. And it is unclear, on Flew's account, why giving a poor tip because of a waiter's race is any different than doing so because of his preferences in sports.
Often people will insist that the injustice of racial or sex discrimination stems from the connection between those forms of discrimination and the reliance on stereotypes. It is not just that race is irrelevant but that those who act on race-based grounds are using inaccurate stereotypes instead of treating a person “as an individual,” as the phrase goes. However, if “being treated as an individual” means that others must take into account all of the potentially relevant information about the person in their behavior toward her, then there is no plausibility to the claim that anyone has a right to such treatment. Life's scarcity of time and resources undermines the idea that there is such a right.
Moreover, in some cases, stereotypical beliefs reflect reliable generalizations about a group. The term ‘statistical discrimination’ refers to the use of such reliable generalizations. Consider the case of a pregnant job applicant: as a statistical matter, there is a higher antecedent likelihood that she will take more sick days than a nonpregnant applicant during the first year of employment. Yet, an employer who relies on statistical discrimination in excluding the pregnant applicant is acting illegally under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The act was passed because many people quite reasonably thought that it was unjust for a pregnant applicant to be treated in that way. But if the treatment is unjust, then one cannot explain why that is so by invoking the unreliability of the generalization on which the treatment is based.
Garcia (1996) provides an account of racial discrimination that loosens the link between it and injustice, but still preserves some connection. On his account, such discrimination against others expresses a character defect, viz., the failure to care enough, or in the right way, for their interests. Accordingly, such discrimination (and, by extension, sex discrimination and other forms as well) is a matter of what is “in the heart” of the racist individual: “racially focused ill-will or disregard (including disrespect)” (10). This echoes the claim made by Gunnar Myrdal in his classic work, An American Dilemma, that “the American Negro problem is a problem in the heart of Americans” (1944: lxxi).
Garcia's account weakens the link between racial discrimination and injustice because not every act expressing racial ill-will or disregard will be an injustice. Garcia writes that racial discrimination against a person “will often offend against justice,” but he does not argue that it always so offends (10). He points out that discrimination against a person based on race may amount to a failure of benevolence, rather than a violation of rights. For example, racial disregard may lead a person to refuse to contribute to a charity organization that works with inner-city youth. In such a case, the person has failed to show benevolence for morally discreditable reasons, and so has behaved badly. But no injustice has been committed.
On the other hand racial ill-will is often expressed in violations of the rights of persons: hate crimes that harm the property or person of an individual on account of race; efforts to prevent members of certain racial groups from voting; charging racial minorities higher prices for the same product than the prices charged to similarly situated whites; denying persons equality of opportunity in the job and housing markets on account of their race. Such actions would count as injustices, not simply failures of benevolence. Thus, Garcia's approach preserves some link between discrimination and injustice, but it is much more attenuated than the link posited by the popular view that disadvantageous treatment on the basis of race is ipso facto an injustice (at least prima facie) to the person so treated.
3.2.2 Systemic Accounts Many thinkers reject the idea that the injustice of discrimination stems fundamentally from what is in the mind or heart of the individual. Crespi (1945) criticized Myrdal on the ground that the latter's individualistic understanding of racial discrimination entailed that “ethical exhortation” was the remedy for racial injustice. Crespi argued that what really needed remedy were the social and economic structures that advantage whites. More recently, Steinberg (1995) and Bonilla-Silva (1997), among others, have argued that racial discrimination should not be understood as a “moral problem,” i.e., as a problem with individual attitudes or actions, but rather as a problem of persistent structural inequality. And MacKinnon has made a parallel argument when it comes to sex discrimination. For example, she contends that pornography is “not a moral problem” but rather a political one, meaning that it does not pose a problem of the virtue and vice of individuals and their behavior but rather one concerning relations of power that subordinate women to men (1987: 146).
On the systemic account of racial and sex discrimination, the injustice of discriminatory acts lies in their connection to broader patterns in society that reduce the members of certain groups to second-class citizenship, or worse. Considered in abstraction from these broader patterns, refusing employment to someone on account of her race might be morally objectionable insofar as it treated a person arbitrarily when some important interest of hers was at stake. But the objectionable treatment amounts to an injustice because such acts are not sporadic but rather systemic and add up to a system in which persons have their entire lives substantially diminished on account of their race or sex. And such a system is what violates the right to equality — the basic civil right. Individual acts of racial or gender discrimination do so only derivatively, by reinforcing the systemic violation.
There are different ways in which a systemic account can be elaborated. For example, in MacKinnon's (1987) account of sex discrimination, the system of gender inequality revolves around the sexual subordination of women. Butler (1990), Brown (1995) and other feminists provide accounts which do not share MacKinnon's focus on sexual subordination. On the matter of racial discrimination, Cox (1948) focuses on the ways in which racial conflict is rooted in class conflict, while Omi and Winant emphasize “the specificity of race as an autonomous field of social conflict, political organization, and cultural/ideological meaning” (1994: 48).
In whatever way the details are elaborated, all systemic accounts rest on the premise that women, racial minorities, and other groups are second-class citizens (or very vulnerable to such a status) and that they are so because of their group membership. The advocates of systemic accounts typically represent their views as incompatible with individualistic ones. They do so by insisting that discrimination is “not a moral problem” of the individual's heart or mind, but one concerning group power relations and social patterns of disadvantage. But their insistence rests on a false dichotomy. Discrimination based on race, sex and other categories can be a problem of the individual's heart and mind, as well as an issue that concerns systemic patterns of disadvantage in society. As Wasserstrom (1977) pointed out, discrimination can operate at both the individual and systemic levels. It is not necessary to deny the existence of patterns of discriminatory treatment that reduce, or threaten to reduce, some persons to second-class citizenship in order to affirm that it is an injustice to deny a person a job because of her sex. And it is not necessary to deny that, apart from social patterns of disadvantage, the individual who is denied a job for such reasons has been treated in an unjust way, in order to affirm that there are such patterns that reduce some to second-class status.
3.3 Justifying Antidiscrimination Law Antidiscrimination laws typically pick out certain categories such as race and sex for legal protection, define certain spheres such as employment and public accommodations in which discrimination based on the protected categories is prohibited, and establish special government agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to assist in the laws' enforcement. There are many questions that can be raised concerning the justifiability of such laws. Some of the central philosophical questions derive from the fact that the laws restrict freedom of association, including the liberty of employers to decide whom they will hire. Some have argued that the liberal commitment to free association requires the rejection of antidiscrimination laws, including those that ban employment discrimination such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Epstein, 1992). Most liberals thinkers reject this view, but any liberal defense of antidiscrimination laws must cite considerations sufficiently strong to override the infringements on freedom of association that the laws involve.
There are two different approaches within liberal thought to the justification of antidiscrimination laws. Both approaches regard as very important the interests people have in the areas protected by the laws, such as employment and public accommodations. And both approaches agree that the disadvantageous treatment of a person in those areas on the basis of race, sex, and the other traditional civil rights categories is morally arbitrary. However, on the first approach, the key to the justification of antidiscrimination laws rests squarely on the fact that the conduct prohibited by the laws is morally arbitrary. In contrast, the second approach holds that it is not the morally arbitrary conduct as such that justifies the laws but rather the fact that conduct based on those categories has had systemic effects reducing the members of certain groups to second-class citizenship (Karst, 1989). Thus, the difference between the two approaches tracks the distinction between the individualistic and systemic accounts of why discrimination is wrong. Although many legal theorists endorse the systemic approach to the justification of antidiscrimination law, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have adopted the individualistic one (Balkin, 2001).
3.4 The Existence of Discrimination Many debates over civil rights issues turn on assumptions about the scope and effects of existing discrimination (i.e., objectionable disadvantageous treatment) against particular groups. For example, some thinkers hold that systemic discrimination based on race and gender is largely a thing of the past in contemporary liberal democracies (at least in economically advanced ones) and that the current situation allows persons to participate in society as free and equal citizens, regardless of race or gender (Thernstom and Thernstrom, 1997; Sommers, 1994). Many others reject that view, arguing that white skin privilege and patriarchy persist and operate to substantially and unjustifiably diminish the life-prospects of nonwhites and women (Bobo, 1997; Smith 1993). These differences drive debates over affirmative action, race-conscious electoral districting, and pornography, among other issues.
Questions about the scope and effects of discrimination are largely but not entirely empirical in character. Such questions concern the degree to which participation in society as a free and equal citizen is hampered by one's race or sex. And addressing that concern presupposes some normative criteria for determining what is needed to possess the status of such a citizen.
Moreover, there are subtle aspects of discrimination that are not captured by thinking strictly in terms of categories such as race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. Piper analyzes “higher-order” forms of discrimination in which certain traits, such as speaking style, come to be arbitrarily disvalued on account of their association with a disvalued race or sex (2001). Determining the presence and effects of such forms of discrimination in society at large would be a very complicated conceptual and empirical task. Additional complications stem from the fact that different categories of discrimination might intersect in ways that produce distinctive forms of unjust disadvantage. Thus, some thinkers have asserted that the intersection of race and sex creates a form of discrimination against black women which has not been adequately recognized or addressed by judges or liberal legal theorists. (Crenshaw, 1998) And other thinkers have begun to argue that our understanding of discrimination must be expanded beyond the white-black paradigm to include the distinctive ways in which Asian-Americans and other minority groups are subjected to discriminatory attitudes and treatment (Wu, 2002).
Among the most careful empirical studies of discrimination have been those conducted by Ayers (2001). He found evidence of “pervasive discrimination” in several types of markets, including retail car sales, bail-bonding, and kidney-transplantation. Yet, his assessment is that “we still do not know the current ambit of race and gender discrimination in America” (425).
4. Sexual Orientation Some civil rights laws in the United States include the category of sexual orientation, but many people contest the legitimacy of the laws. The state of Colorado went so far as to ratify an amendment to its constitution that would prohibit any jurisdiction within the state from enacting a civil rights law that would protect homosexuals. The amendment was eventually invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court on the ground that it was the product of simple prejudice and served no legitimate state purpose, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause (Romer v. Evans). But federal courts have upheld the military's “don't ask, don't tell” policy (Thomasson v. Perry) and the U.S. Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits courts from ruling that same-sex marriages must be recognized on equal protection grounds. On the other hand, same-sex marriages are legally recognized in Massachusetts, though there are efforts to rescind the recognition, and marriage laws have also been extended to same-sex couples in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain. In addition, several jurisdictions have recognized same-sex partnerships with many, though not all, of the legal rights of marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage have claimed that it would weaken the commitment of heterosexuals to marriage, but some advocates have presented empirical data that appears to undercut any such claim (Eskridge and Spedale, 2006).
Much of the discussion of “gay rights” involves the question of whether sexual orientation is genetically determined, socially determined, or the product of individual choice. However, it is not clear why the question is relevant. The discussion appears to assume that genetic determination would vindicate the civil rights claims of gays, because sexual orientation would then be like race or sex insofar as it would be biologically fixed and immutable. But it is a mistake to think that racial or sex discrimination is morally objectionable because of the biological fixity or unchosen nature of race and sex. It is objectionable because it expresses ill-will or indifference, and it is unjust because it treats an individual in a morally arbitrary manner and, under current conditions, reinforces social patterns of disadvantage that seriously diminish the life prospects of many persons. The view that sexual orientation is like race or sex in a morally relevant way should focus on the analogous features of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Wintermute (1995) and Koppelman (1994 and 1997) assert that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not just analogous to sex discrimination but that it is a form of sex discrimination. If it is legally permissible for Jane to have sex with John, then banning Joe's having sex with John would seem to amount to discrimination (disadvantageous treatment) against Joe on grounds of his sex. If Joe were a woman, his having sex with John would be permitted, so he is being treated differently because of his sex. However, Koppelman contends that this formal argument should be supplemented by more substantive ones referring to the systemic patterns of social disadvantage from which gays and lesbians suffer. In fact, one can argue that the treatment of gays and lesbians is an injustice to them as individuals and amounts to a systemic pattern of unjust disadvantage. The individual injustice arises from the arbitrary nature of denying persons valuable life-opportunities, such as employment and marriage, on the basis of their sexual orientation. The systemic injustice arises from the repeated and widespread acts of individual injustice.
The most controversial civil rights issues regarding sexual orientation concern the principle of equal treatment for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Most scholars endorse such a principle (Wardle 1996) and argue that equal treatment requires that same-sex marriages be legalized (Eskridge 1996). Moreover, it is often argued in the literature that a person's choice of sex partner is central to her life and protected under a right of privacy. In Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court rejected this argument, upholding the criminalization of homosexual sodomy. The decision was condemned by legal and political thinkers and was overturned by the Court in Lawrence v. Texas. The Court invoked the right of privacy in declaring the state's criminal ban on sodomy between same-sex partners. Nonetheless, some scholars who argue for the equal legal treatment of same-sex relations contend that privacy-based arguments are inadequate. They point out that one can hold the view that adults have a right to engage in same-sex intimacies even as one contends that such intimacies are morally abominable and ought not to receive any encouragement from government (Sandel 1996: 107; Koppelman 1997: 1646). Such a view would reject equal legal treatment for those in intimate same-sex relationships.
Finnis takes such a view, arguing that same-sex relations are “manifestly unworthy of the human being and immoral” and should not be encouraged by the state, but finding that criminalizing same-sex relations violates rights of individual privacy (1996: 14). Lee and George also find such relations to be morally defective and unworthy of equal treatment by the state (1997), though George (1993) does not think that any sound a priori principle prohibits criminalization.
Finnis, Lee and George argue for their condemnation of same-sex relations on the ground of natural law theory. However, unlike traditional versions of natural law theory, their version does not rest on any explicit theological or metaphysical claims. Rather, it invokes independent principles of practical reasoning that articulate the basic reasons for action. Such reasons are the fundamental goods that action is capable of realizing and, for Finnis, Lee and George, include “marriage, the conjuntio of man and woman” (Finnis 1996: 4). Homosexual conduct, masturbation, and all extra-marital sex aim strictly at “individual gratification” and can be no part of any “common good.” Such actions “harm the character” of those voluntarily choosing them (Lee and George, 1997: 135). In taking the actions, a person becomes a slave to his passions, allowing his reason to be overridden by his raw desire for sensuous pleasure.
On Finnis's account, when consensual sexual conduct is private, government may not outlaw it, but government “can rightly judge that it has a compelling interest in denying that ‘gay lifestyles’ are a valid and humanly acceptable choice and form of life” (1996: 17). And for Finnis, Lee and George, equal treatment of same-sex and heterosexual relations is out of the question due to the morally defective character of same-sex relations.
Macedo responds to Finnis by arguing that “all of the goods that can be shared by sterile heterosexual couples can also be shared by committed homosexual couples” (1996: 39). Macedo points out that Finnis does not condemn sexual intercourse by sterile heterosexual couples. But Finnis replies that there is a relevant difference between homosexual couples and sterile heterosexual ones: the latter but not the former are united “biologically” when they have intercourse. Lee and George make essentially the same point: only heterosexual couples can “truly become one body, one organism” (1997: 150). But Macedo points out that, biologically, it is not the man and woman who unite but the sperm and the egg (1996: 37). It can be added that the “biological unity” argument seems to run contrary to Finnis's claim that his position “does not seek to infer normative conclusions from non-normative (natural-fact) premises” (1997: 16). More importantly, Macedo and Koppelman make the key point that the human good possible through intimate relations is a function of “mutual commitment and stable engagement” (Macedo, 1996: 40) and that same-sex couples can achieve “the precise kind of human good” that is available to heterosexual ones (Koppelman, 1997: 1649; also see Corvino,2005). Accordingly, equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples, including the recognition of same-sex marriage, would remove unjustifiable obstacles faced by same-sex couples to the achievement of that human good.
5. Disability During the 1970's and 80's, persons with disabilities increasingly argued that they were second-class citizens. They organized into a civil rights movement that pressed for legislation that would help secure for them the status of equal citizens. Protection against discrimination based on disability was written into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The disability rights movement in the U.S. culminated with the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA has served as a model for legislation in countries such as Australia, India and Israel
5.1 The Medical and Social Models The traditional model for understanding disability is called the “medical model.” It is reflected in many pre-ADA laws and in some philosophical discussions of disability which treat it as an issue of the just distribution of health care (Daniels, 1987). According to the medical model, a disabled person is one who falls below some baseline level that defines normal human functioning. That level is a natural one, on this view, in that it is determined by biological facts about the human species. Thus, the medical model supposes that the question of who counts as disabled can be answered in a way that is value-free and that abstracts from existing social practices and the physical environment those practices have constructed. It also gives the medical profession a privileged position in determining who is disabled, as the study and treatment of normal and subnormal human functioning is the specialty of that profession.
The consensus among current disability theorists is that the medical model should be rejected. Any determination that a certain level of function is normal for the species will presuppose judgments that do not simply describe biological reality but impose on them some system of evaluation. Moreover, the level of functioning a person can achieve does not depend solely on her own individual abilities: it depends as well on the social practices and the physical environment those practices have shaped.
Disability theorists thus posit an important analogy between the categories of ‘race’ and ‘disability’. As they understand it, neither category refers to any real distinctions in nature. Just as there is variation in skin color, there is variation in acuity of vision, physical strength, ability to walk and run and so on (Amundson, 2000). And just as there is no natural line dividing one “race” from another, there is no natural line dividing those who are functionally “abnormal” from those who are not so.
The rejection of the medical model has led to a “social model,” according to which certain physical or biological properties are turned into dysfunctions by social practices and the socially-constructed physical environment (Francis and Silvers, 2000). For example, lack of mobility for those who are unable to walk is not simply a function of their physical characteristics: it is also a function of building practices that employ stairs instead of ramps and by automotive design practices that require the use of one's legs to drive a car. There is nothing necessary about such practices. Accordingly, the social model conceives of disability as socially-imposed dysfunction.
The social model brings attention to how engineering and design practices can work to the disadvantage of persons with certain physical characteristics. And the idea of dysfunction is certainly a value-laden one. But it seems no more accurate to think that dysfunction is entirely imposed by society than it is to think that it is entirely the product of an individual's physical or mental characteristics. Individual characteristics in the context of the socially-constructed environment determine the level of functioning that a person can achieve (Amundson, 1992). And some individual characteristics would impair a person's functioning under all or almost all practicable alternatives to current social practices. Moreover, despite the fact that “normal human functioning” is a value-laden concept, it does not follow that it is entirely subjective or that reasonable efforts to specify the elements of some morally acceptable level of human functioning are misguided (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993). Indeed, some defensible understanding of what counts as better or worse human functioning would seem to be necessary to determine when some social practice has turned a physical (or mental) characteristic into a significant disadvantage for a person.
In addition, the social model's conception of what it is to be a disabled person seems overbroad. The social practice of requiring students to pass courses in order to receive a degree creates a barrier that some persons cannot surmount. It does not seem that such people are, ipso facto, disabled. Such examples of “exclusionary” social practices could be multiplied indefinitely. Some thinkers may not be troubled by the implication that everyone is disabled in every respect in which she is excluded or otherwise disadvantaged by some social practice. But it is difficult to see how the idea of disability would then be of much use.
5.2 Race, Disability, and Discrimination The disability rights movement began with the idea that discrimination on the basis of disability was not different in any morally important way from discrimination based on race. The aim of the movement was to enshrine in law the same kind of antidiscrimination principle that protected persons based on their race. But some theorists have questioned how well the analogy holds. They point out that applying the antidiscrimination norm to disability requires taking account of physical or mental differences among people. This seems to be treatment based on a person's physical (or mental) features, apparently the exact opposite of the ideal of “colorblindness” behind the traditional antidiscrimination principle.
Even race-based affirmative action does not really seem to be parallel to antidiscrimination policies that take account of disability. Advocates of affirmative action assert that the social ideal is for persons not to be treated on the basis of their race or color at all. Race-conscious policies are seen as instruments that will move society toward that ideal (Wasserstrom, 2001).
In contrast, policies designed to counter discrimination based on disability are not sensibly understood as temporary measures or steps toward a goal in which people are not treated based on their disabilities. The policies permanently enshrine the idea that in designing buildings or buses or constructing some other aspect of our physical-social environment, we must be responsive to the disabilities people have in order for the disabled to have “fair equality of opportunity” (Rawls, 2001: 43-44). The need for a permanent “accommodation” of persons with disabilities seems to mark an important difference in how the antidiscrimination norm should be understood in the context of disability, as opposed to the context of race.
However, it is important to recognize that, at the level of fundamental principle, the reasons why disability-based discrimination is morally objectionable and even unjust are essentially the same as the reasons why racial discrimination is so. At the individual level, disadvantageous treatment of the disabled is often rooted in ill-will, disregard, and moral arbitrariness. At the systemic level, such treatment creates a social pattern of disadvantage that reduces the disabled to second-class status. In those two respects, the grounds of civil rights law are no different when it comes to the disabled.
Another way in which disability is thought to be fundamentally different from race concerns the special needs that the disabled often have that make life more costly for them. These extra costs would exist even if the socially-constructed physical environment were built to provide the disabled with fair equality of opportunity and their basic civil and political liberties were secured. In order to function effectively, disabled persons may need to buy medications or therapies or other forms of assistance that the able-bodied do not need for their functioning. And there does not seem to be any parallel in matters of race to the special needs of some of those who are disabled. The driving idea of the civil rights movement was that blacks did not have any special needs: all they needed was to have the burdens of racism lifted from them and, once that was accomplished, they would flourish or fail like everyone else in society.
However, Silvers (1998) argues that the parallel between race and disability still holds: all the disabled may claim from society as a matter of justice is that they have fair equality of opportunity and the same basic civil rights as everyone else. Any special needs that the disabled may have do not provide the grounds of any legitimate claims of justice. On the other hand, Kittay (2000) argues that the special needs of the disabled are a matter of basic justice. She focuses on the severely mentally disabled, for whom fair opportunity in the labor markets and political rights in the public sphere will have no significance, and on the families which have the responsibility of caring for the severely disabled. Pogge (2000) also questions Silvers' view, suggesting that it is implausible to deny that justice requires that society provide resources for meeting the needs of the severely disabled. Still, it may be the case that some version of Silvers' approach may be justifiable when it comes to disabled persons who have the capacity “to participate fully in the political and civic institutions of the society and, more broadly, in its public life” (Pogge, 2000: 45). In the case of such persons, the basic civil right to equal citizenship would require that they have the equal opportunity to participate in such institutions, regardless of their disability. Although there may be some aspects of the racial model that cannot be applied to persons with severe forms of mental disability, the principles behind the American civil rights struggles of the 1950's and 60's remain crucial normative resources for understanding and combating forms of unjust discrimination that have only more recently been addressed by philosophers and by society more broadly.
5.3 Contractarianism and the Disabled The emergence of the issue of disability rights has posed an important challenge for versions of liberalism inspired by the social contract tradition. One of the putative advantages of such forms of liberalism is that they better reflect strong and widely held intuitions about justice and individual rights than does utilitarianism. As Rawls famously wrote, “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override” (1999: 3). However, several thinkers have argued that Rawls's own contractarian theory does not make adequate room for the severely disabled. These arguments are not about the rights of the severely disabled, but rather begin from the assumption that those who are so disabled do have robust moral rights and then proceed to the question whether contractarianism can account for those rights.
The problem for Rawls derives from the conception of personhood that accompanies his idea that society should be conceived as a fair system of cooperation among free and equal persons, extending over generations. On that conception, "a person is someone who can be a citizen, that is, a normal and fully cooperating member of society over a complete life." Additionally, persons are represented as having two "moral powers," the capacities for a sense of justice and for a conception of the good. The parties to Rawls's original position choose principles of justice with such a conception of the person in mind.
Critics have argued that Rawls's principles of justice fail to take adequate account of the legitimate claims of the severely disabled and that the heart of the problem is Rawls's contractarianism. Nussbaum (2006) claims that Rawls goes astray in following traditional contractarianism and conceiving of society as a scheme of cooperation for mutual advantage (2006). Yet, Becker defends mutual-advantage theories, arguing that they can incorporate a conception of reciprocity sufficiently rich to underwrite principles that truly do justice to the disabled. Stark (2007) and Brighouse (2001) argue that Rawls's theory, in particular, can be extended or modified to take account of disabled, without repudiating its contractarian core.
Kittay (1999 and 2001) agrees with the liberal idea that justice must not be sacrificed for other values, but she doubts that any form of liberalism can make adequate room for the claims of justice made on behalf of the severely disabled. In contrast, Silvers and Francis (2005) defend a form of contract theory in which the parties seek to build mutual trust. They argue that the interests of disabled would not be discounted in such a contract.
6. Legal Cases and Statutes Americans With Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. §§12101-12213 (1999).
Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Boy Scouts v. Dale, No. 99-699 (2000).
Civil Rights Act of 1866. 42 U.S.C §1981 (1999).
Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq.
Defense of Marriage Act 28 U.S.C. §1738c (1999).
Ex Parte Crow Dog 109 U.S. 556 (1883).
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. 28 U.S.C. §§1301-1303.
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe 498 U.S. 505 (1991).
Pregnancy Discrimination Act 42 U.S.C. §2000 (e)(k).
Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez 436 U.S. 49 (1978).
Thomasson v. Perry 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996)
Bibliography Amar. Akhil Reed. 1998. The Bill of Rights. New Haven: Yale U.P.
Amundson, Ronald. 2000. “Biological Normality and the ADA,” in L.P. Francis and A. Silvers, eds., Americans with Disabilities. New York: Routledge, pp. 102-110.
Amundson, Ronald. 1992. “Disability, Handicap, and the Environment,” Journal of Social Philosophy 23: 105-19.
Appiah, K. Anthony. 1996. “Race, Culture, Identity: Misunderstood Connections,” in A. Gutmann and K.A. Appiah, Color Conscious. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 30-105.
Ayers, Ian. 2001. Pervasive Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Balkin, Jack, ed.. 2001. What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said : The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Landmark Civil Rights Decision. New York: New York University Press.
Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Becker, Lawrence. 2005. “Reciprocity, Justice, and Disability,” Ethics 116: 9-39.
Brighouse, Harry. 2001. “Can Justice as Fairness Accommodate the Disabled?,” Social Theory and Practice 27: 537-60.
Bobo, Lawrence. 1997. “Lassez-Faire Racism,” in Steven Tuch and Jack Martin, Racial Attitudes in the 1990's. Wesport, CT: Praeger, pp. 15-42
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation.” American Sociological Review 62: 465-80.
Boxill, Bernard. 1992. Blacks and Social Justice revised ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brest, Paul. 1976. “In Defense of the Antidiscrimination Principle.” Harvard Law Review 90: 1-54.
Brown, Wendy. States of Injury. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.
Corvino, John. 2005. “Homosexuality and the PIB Argument.” Ethics 115: 501-34.
Cranston, Maurice. 1967. “Human Rights: Real and Supposed,” in D.D. Raphael, ed., Political Theory and the Rights of Man. Bloomington, IN: Indiana U.P., pp. 43-51
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1998. “A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Law and Politics,” in D. Kairys, ed., The Politics of Law, 3rd edition. New York: Basic Books, pp. 356-80.
Crespi, Leo. 1945. “Is Gunnar Myrdal on the Right Track?” Public Opinion Quarterly: 201-12.
Deloria, Jr. Vine. 1988 Custer Died for Your Sins. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Dewey, John. 1939 Freedom and Culture. New York: Capricorn.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1995. Freedom's Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
Epstein, Richard. 1992. Forbidden Grounds : The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
Eskridge, William. 1996. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage. New York: Free Press.
Eskridge Jr., William and Darren R. Spedale. 2006. Gay Marriage : For Better or For Worse?: What We've Learned from the Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Finnis, John. 1997. “The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations,” American Journal of Jurisprudence 42: 97-134.
Finnis, John. 1996. “Natural Law Theory and Limited Government,” in Robert P. George, ed., Natural Law, Liberalism and Morality. Oxford: Oxford U.P., pp. 1-26
Flew, Anthony. 1990. “Three Concepts of Racism,” Encounter LXXV 63-66
Francis, Leslie Pickering and Anita Silvers, eds. 2000. “Introduction,” in Francis and Silvers, Americans with Disabilities. New York: Routledge.
Garcia, J.L.A. 1996. “The Heart of Racism,” Journal of Social Philosophy 27: 5-45.
Gardner, John. 1998. “On the Ground of Her Sex(uality),” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18: 167-87.
George, Robert. 1993. Making Men Moral. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gitlin, Todd. 1995. The Twilight of Common Dreams. New York: Henry Holt.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. “Citizenship and National Identity,” in Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 491-515.
Holmes, Stephen and Cass Sunstein. 1999. The Cost of Rights. New York: Norton.
Johnston, Darlene. 1995. “Native Rights as Collective Rights; A Question of Group Self-Preservation,” in Will Kymlicka, ed., The Rights of Cultural Minorities. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press.
Kahlenberg, Richard. 1996. The Remedy. New York: Basic Books.
Karst, Kenneth. 1989. Belonging to America: Equal Citizenship and the Constitution. New Haven: Yale U.P.
Kernohan, Andrew. 1998. Liberalism, Equality, and Cultural Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Kittay, Eva F. 1999. Love's labor: Essays on Equality, Women, and Dependency. New York: Routledge.
Kittay, Eva Feder. 2000. “At Home with My Daughter,” in L.P. Francis and A. Silvers, eds., Americans with Diabilities. New York: Routledge: 64-80.
Kittay, Eva F. 2001. “When Caring is Just and Justice is Caring: Justice and Mental Retardation,” Public Culture 13: 557-579.
Koppelman, Andrew. 1997. ”Three Arguments for Gay Rights,” Michigan Law Review. 95: 1636-67.
Koppelman, Andrew. 1996. Antidiscrimination Law and Social Equality. New Haven: Yale U.P.
Koppelman, Andrew. 1994. “Why Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination.” New York University Law Review 69: 197-287.
Kukathas, Chandran. 1995. “Are There Any Cultural Rights,” in W. Kymlicka, ed. The Rights of Minority Cultures. New York: Oxford U.P: 228-56.
Kukathas, Chandran. “Is Feminism Bad for Multiculturalism?” 2001. Public Affairs Quarterly 15: 83-97.
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kymlicka, Will. 1994. “Individual and Community Rights,” in J. Baker, ed., Group Rights. University of Toronto Press.
Kymlicka, Will. 1989. Liberalism, Community, and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lee, Patrick and Robert George. 1997. “What Sex Can Be: Self-Alienation, Illusion, or One-Flesh?” American Journal of Jurisprudence 42: 135-57.
Macedo, Stephen. 1996. “Sexual Morality and the New Natural Law,” in R.P. George, ed., Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality. Oxford: Oxford U.P.
MacKinnon, Catherine. 1987. Feminism Unmodified. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
Manin, Bernard. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Marshall, T.M. 1965. Class, Citizenship, and Social Development. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Please note that this text-only version, provided for ease of printing and reading, includes approximately 75 pages and may take up to 20 minutes to print.
By clicking on one of these links, you may go directly to a particular text-only section:
Essay on The Need for Change
Essay on The Players
Essay on The Strategy
Essay on The Cost
Essay on The Prize
List of Sites
Begin the Tour
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.
Thomas Jefferson's stirring words, written in 1776 in our Declaration of Independence, defined the promise of America--freedom and equality for all. The words rang hollow, however, for the millions of African Americans held in slavery prior to the Civil War, and later denied political, economic, educational, and social equality by unjust laws and social customs. This National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary tells the powerful story of how and where the centuries-long struggle of African Americans to achieve the bright promise of America culminated in the mid-20th century in a heroic campaign we call the modern civil rights movement. Many of the places where these seminal events occurred, the churches, schools, homes, and neighborhoods, are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and are included in this itinerary.
Throughout history, African Americans resisted their slavery and later second-class citizenship. Opposition took many forms, from the passive resistance of slaves who performed poor work for their masters, to slave revolts, to slaves escaping to freedom on the Underground Railroad, to African Americans' participation in the Abolitionist movement and their joining the Union army during the Civil War. During this trying period African Americans preserved their heritage and social institutions.
Following the Civil War this country moved to extend equality to African Americans with the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (1865) which outlawed slavery, the 14th Amendment (1868) which made citizens of all persons born in this country and afforded equal protection of the laws to all citizens, and the 15th Amendment (1870) which provided the right to vote to all citizens, regardless of race (In 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified giving women the right to vote). This promising start soon faltered during the tensions of Reconstruction (1865-1877) when federal armies occupied the South and enforced order.
The genuine reform impulse of Reconstruction was the "first" civil rights movement, as the victorious North attempted to create the conditions whereby African Americans could freely and fully participate in this country as citizens. It was a noble experiment in bi-racial harmony, and, had it succeeded, there probably would have been no need for a "second" civil rights movement.
Exhausted by the efforts and divisions of the Civil War and Reconstruction and the longing for the country to reunite, the white advocates of equality were overcome by the forces of reaction, and the fate of African Americans was turned over to the individual states. Many states adopted restrictive laws which enforced segregation of the races and the second-class status of African Americans. The courts, the police, and groups such as the Ku Klux Klan all enforced these discriminatory practices.
African Americans responded in a variety of ways. Booker T. Washington (1856-1915), the early 20th century's leading advocate of black education, stressed industrial schooling for African Americans and gradual social adjustment rather than political and civil rights. The charismatic reformer Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) called for racial separatism and a "Back-to-Africa" colonization program. But it was a different path, one that emphasized that African Americans were in this country to stay and would fight for their freedom and political equality, that led to the modern civil rights movement and is the focus of this National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary.
In visiting the 49 places listed in the National Register for their association with the modern civil rights movement, as well as the Selma-to-Montgomery March route--a Department of Transportation designated "All-American Road" and a National Park Service designated National Historic Trail--two things will be apparent. First, although they had white supporters and sympathizers, the modern civil rights movement was designed, led, organized, and manned by African Americans, who placed themselves and their families on the front lines in the struggle for freedom. Their heroism was brought home to every American through newspaper, and later, television reports as their peaceful marches and demonstrations were violently attacked by law enforcement officers armed with batons, bullwhips, fire hoses, police dogs, and mass arrests. The second characteristic of the movement is that it was not monolithic, led by one or two men. Rather it was a dispersed, grass-roots campaign that attacked segregation in many different places using many different tactics. On this itinerary you will learn about the people and places associated with one of the most important chapters in our history.
The properties included in the itinerary are related to the modern civil rights movement, that is, with a few exceptions, the events of the post-World War II period, and especially the 1950s and 1960s. The focus of the itinerary is the African American freedom struggle, and does not include the attempts of other minority groups, such as Asians, Hispanics, or Native Americans, to obtain equality. The list of properties included in the itinerary does not represent all of the sites important in the civil rights movement; a number of these places have yet to be recognized by National Register listing. The 49 properties have been nominated by the States and listed in the National Register over the years, and do not represent a systematic effort to survey, identify, and list all important civil rights sites in the National Register. Visitors may be interested in Historic Hotels of America, a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, located near the places featured in this itinerary, including Boone Tavern Hall of Berea College.
This travel itinerary was prepared as a cooperative project between the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Both agencies have formally recognized the historic significance of the Selma-to-Montgomery march of 1965. Congress has designated, and the National Park Service administers, the Selma-to-Montgomery National Historic Trail based on the route's national significance in American history. The Federal Highway Administration has designated the march route as an All-American Road.
Essay on The Need for Change
The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country...But in the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens...Our Constitution is color-blind... In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law... It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal... has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race... We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow-citizens, our equals before the law. The thin disguise of "equal" accommodations...will not mislead anyone, nor atone for the wrong this day done.
Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
The "wrong this day done" to which Justice Harlan referred was the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Homer Adolph Plessy, an African American, had boarded a train in New Orleans and seated himself in a "whites-only" car. When he refused to move, he was arrested for violating the "Jim Crow Car Act of 1890." The incident led to the Supreme Court case in which all but Justice Harlan voted against Plessy, affirming the right of states to enact segregation laws. The "separate but equal" ruling set the stage for the rampant racial discrimination that followed in the Deep South. In many cities and towns, African Americans were not allowed to share a taxi with whites or enter a building through the same entrance. They had to drink from separate water fountains, use separate restrooms, attend separate schools, and even swear on separate Bibles and be buried in separate cemeteries. They were excluded from restaurants and public libraries. Many parks barred them with signs that read "Negroes and dogs not allowed." One municipal zoo went so far as to list separate visiting hours.
African Americans were expected to step aside to let a white person pass, and black men dared not look any white woman in the eye. Black men and women were addressed as "Tom" or "Jane" but rarely as "Mr." or "Miss" or "Mrs." A black man was referred to as "boy" and a black woman as "girl"; both often endured insulting labels of "nigger" or "colored."
Voting rights discrimination was widespread. In Tennessee, as the Justice Department's John Doar discovered on a self-appointed tour of rural Haywood County, black sharecroppers were being evicted by white farmers for trying to vote. In Mississippi, names of new voter applicants had to be published in local newspapers for two weeks before acceptance, and voters had the right to object to an applicant's "moral character." Black applicants, many of whom were illiterate or poorly educated, were also required to pass literacy tests and to interpret sections of the state constitution to the satisfaction of the registrars. These tests were not applied to illiterate whites. In Alabama, many registration centers were only open two days a month; voting registrars often arrived late and took long lunch hours. In 1957 the town of Tuskegee gerrymandered black residents outside the city limits to make them ineligible to vote. In nearby Macon County, voter registration boards used discriminatory practices such as these to limit the number of eligible black voters:
·holding black applicants to a higher standard of accuracy than whites;
·allowing white applicants to register in their cars and in their homes;
·processing black applicants last, even when they were first in line;
·establishing separate registration offices in different parts of the courthouse;
·offering assistance only to white applicants in completing the registration form;
·refusing to notify black applicants about the status of their applications.
Some counties in the Deep South resorted to harsher means of preventing local blacks from voting. They jailed black applicants and firebombed places where voter education classes had been conducted, such as Mt. Olive Baptist Church in Terrell County, Georgia. They threatened, beat, and in some cases, murdered black applicants.
Southern blacks who resisted segregation, particularly those in rural areas, lived in constant fear--fear of their employers, who vowed to fire them; fear of white "citizens' councils," who adopted policies of economic reprisal against demonstrators; and fear of white vigilante groups like the Ku Klux Klan, who exerted an often-unchecked reign of terror across the South, where lynching of African Americans was a common occurrence and rarely prosecuted. Nearly 4,500 African Americans were lynched in the United States between 1882 and the early 1950s.
Essay on The Players
The significant gains of the civil rights movement were won by people, not processes. Against incredible odds--and often at great risk--the thousands of activists in the modern freedom struggle won victories that touched their own lives as well as those of their neighbors and future generations. Here are highlights about some of the groups and individuals involved in the unfolding human drama:
Southern resistance Resistance to racial equality in the Deep South came not only from extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and white "citizens' councils." It occurred at all levels of government and society--from federal judges to state governors to county sheriffs to local citizens serving on juries.
Governor Orvil Faubus of Arkansas used the Arkansas National Guard to prevent school integration, and Governors Ross Barnett of Mississippi and George Wallace of Alabama physically blocked school doorways. E.H. Hurst, a Mississippi state representative, stalked and killed a black farmer for attending voter registration classes. Laurie Pritchett, Albany, Georgia's police chief, thwarted student efforts to integrate public places in the city. Birmingham's public safety commissioner Eugene T. "Bull" Connor advocated violence against freedom riders and ordered fire hoses and police dogs turned on demonstrators. Sheriff Jim Clark of Dallas County, Alabama loosed his deputies on "Bloody Sunday" marchers and personally menaced other protestors. Police all across the South arrested civil rights activists on trumped-up charges. All-white juries in several states acquitted known killers of local African Americans.
Black churches The leadership role of black churches in the movement was a natural extension of their structure and function. They offered members an opportunity to exercise roles denied them in society. Throughout history, the black church served not only as a place of worship but also as a community "bulletin board," a credit union, a "people's court" to solve disputes, a support group, and a center of political activism. These and other functions enhanced the importance of the minister. The most prominent clergyman in the civil rights movement was Martin Luther King, Jr. Time magazine's 1964 "Man of the Year" was a man of the people. He joined as well as led protest demonstrations, and as comedian Dick Gregory put it, "he gave as many fingerprints as autographs." King's powerful oratory and persistent call for racial justice inspired sharecroppers and intellectuals alike. His tireless personal commitment to and strong leadership role in the black freedom struggle won him worldwide acclaim and the Nobel Peace Prize.
Other notable minister-activists included Ralph Abernathy, King's closest associate; Bernard Lee, veteran demonstrator and frequent travel companion of King; Fred Shuttlesworth, who defied Bull Connor and who created a safe path for a colleague through a white mob in Montgomery by commanding "Out of the way!"; and C.T. Vivian, who debated Sheriff Clark on his conduct and the Constitution.
Students Students and seminarians in both the South and the North played key roles in every phase of the civil rights movement--from bus boycotts to sit-ins to freedom rides to social movements. The student movement involved such celebrated figures as John Lewis, the single-minded activist who "kept on" despite many beatings and harassments; Jim Lawson, the revered "guru" of nonviolent theory and tactics; Diane Nash, an articulate and intrepid public champion of justice; Bob Moses, pioneer of voting registration in the most rural--and most dangerous--part of the South; and James Bevel, a fiery preacher and charismatic organizer and facilitator. Other prominent student activists included Charles McDew, Bernard Lafayette, Charles Jones, Lonnie King, Julian Bond (associated with Atlanta University), Hosea Williams (associated with Brown Chapel), and Stokely Carmichael, who later changed his name to Kwame Toure.
Institutional frameworks Church and student-led movements developed their own organizational and sustaining structures. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (the SCLC), founded in 1957, coordinated and raised funds, mostly from northern sources, for local protests and for the training of black leaders. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, founded in 1957, developed the "jail-no-bail" strategy. SNCC's role was to develop and link sit-in campaigns and to help organize freedom rides, voter registration drives, and other protest activities. Bob Moses of SNCC created the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) to coordinate the work of the SCLC, SNCC, and various other national and independent civil rights groups. These three new groups often joined forces with existing organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), founded in 1909, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), founded in 1942, and the National Urban League. The NAACP and its Director, Roy Wilkins, provided legal counsel for jailed demonstrators, helped raise bail, and continued to test segregation and discrimination in the courts as it had been doing for half a century. CORE initiated the 1961 Freedom Rides which involved many SNCC members, and CORE's leader James Forman later became executive secretary of SNCC. The National Urban League, founded in 1911 and headed by Whitney M. Young, Jr., helped open up job opportunities for African Americans. Labor was represented by A. Philip Randolph, vice-president of the American Federation of Labor, and his chief assistant and organizer, Bayard Rustin.
Federal involvement All branches of the federal government impacted the civil rights movement. President John Kennedy supported enforcement of desegregation in schools and public facilities. Attorney General Robert Kennedy brought more than 50 lawsuits in four states to secure black Americans' right to vote. President Lyndon Johnson was personally committed to achieving civil rights goals. Congress passed and President Johnson signed the century's two most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation--the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson advocated civil rights even though he knew it would cost the Democratic Party the South in the next presidential election, and for the foreseeable future. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, concerned about possible Communist influence in the civil rights movement and personally antagonistic to Martin Luther King, Jr., used the FBI to investigate King and other civil rights leaders. U.S. District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., ruled against segregation and voting rights discrimination in Alabama and made the Selma-to-Montgomery March possible.
Essay on The Strategy
In the early days of the civil rights movement, litigation and lobbying were the focus of integration efforts. The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education led to a shift in tactics, and from 1955 to 1965, "direct action" was the strategy--primarily bus boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides, and social movements.
Locally initiated boycotts of segregated buses, especially the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955-1956, were designed to unite and mobilize black communities on a commonly-shared concern. Protestors refused to ride on the buses, opting instead to walk or carpool. The nearly one year-long boycott ended bus segregation in Montgomery and triggered other bus boycotts such as the highly successful Tallahassee, Florida boycott of 1956-1957.
Student-organized sit-ins like the February 1960 protest at Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, offered young men and women with no special skills or resources an opportunity to display their discontent and raise white awareness. Protestors were encouraged to dress up, sit quietly, and occupy every other stool so potential white sympathizers could join in. The success of the Greensboro sit-in led to a rash of student campaigns all across the South. By the end of 1960 the sit-ins had spread to every southern and border state and even to Nevada, Illinois, and Ohio. Demonstrators focused not only on lunch counters but on parks, beaches, libraries, theaters, museums, and other public places. When they were arrested, student demonstrators made "jail-no-bail" pledges to call attention to their cause and to reverse the cost of protest (putting the financial burden of jail space and food on the "jailors").
The 1961 Freedom Rides on public buses tested compliance with court orders to desegregate interstate transportation terminals. The trips enabled students from both the South and the North to protest away from campus and to form a tightly-knit community of activists, many of whom would participate in the last protest phase, which began in 1961. National civil rights leaders launched these efforts to involve poor blacks and other blacks who had been uninvolved until then. The movements included door-to-door voter education projects in rural Mississippi, "The Birmingham Campaign" to desegregate public accommodations in the city, and "Freedom Summer," to try to unseat the regular delegation at the 1964 Democratic Convention and to publicize the disenfranchisement of southern blacks.
While some groups and individuals within the civil rights movement advocated Black Power, black separatism, or even armed resistance, the majority of participants remained committed to the principles of nonviolence -- a deliberate decision by an oppressed minority to abstain from violence for political gain. The commitment to nonviolence gave the civil rights movement great moral authority. Using nonviolent strategies, civil rights activists took advantage of emerging national network-news reporting, especially television, to capture national attention and the attention of Congress and the White House. In 1955, journalists covered the Mississippi trial of two men accused of murdering 14-year-old Emmett Till from Chicago. The cover of Jet magazine featured a photo of the boy's mutilated face. A few years later, Americans watched the live footage of violent unrest at Little Rock High School as whites rioted to prevent nine black students from entering the school. Radio, television, and print journalism exhaustively covered such 1960s events as police dogs attacking children in Birmingham, former sharecropper Fannie Lou Hammer describing her jail beatings to delegates at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, and a mounted posse charging "Bloody Sunday" demonstrators in Selma, Alabama.
Essay on The Cost
Freedom wore an expensive price tag.
Southern blacks who tried to register to vote--and those who supported them--were typically jeered and harassed, beaten or killed. In 1963, the NAACP's Medgar Evers was gunned down in front of his wife and children in Jackson, Mississippi. Reverend George Lee of Belzoni, Mississippi, was murdered when he refused to remove his name from a list of registered voters, and farmer Herbert Lee of Liberty, Mississippi, was killed for having attended voter education classes. Three "Freedom Summer" field-workers--Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman--were shot down for their part in helping Mississippi blacks register and organize. Michael Schwerner, a social worker from Manhattan's Lower East Side, James Chaney, a local plasterer's apprentice, and Andrew Goodman, a Queens College anthropology student, disappeared in June 1964. Their bodies were discovered several months later in an earthen dam outside Philadelphia, Mississippi. Schwerner and Goodman had been shot once; Chaney, the lone African American, had been savagely beaten and shot three times.
When violence failed to stop voter registration efforts, whites used economic pressure. In Mississippi's LeFlore and Sunflower Counties--two of the poorest counties in the nation--state authorities cut off federal food relief, resulting in a near-famine in the region. Many black registrants throughout the South were also fired from their jobs or refused credit at local banks and stores. In one town, a black grocer was forced out of business when local whites stopped his store delivery trucks on the highway outside town and made them turn around.
Like voter registrants, freedom riders paid a heavy price for racial justice. When the interracial groups of riders stepped off Greyhound or Trailways buses in segregated terminals, local police were usually absent. Angry mobs were waiting, however, armed with baseball bats, lead pipes, and bicycle chains.
In Anniston, Alabama, one bus was firebombed, forcing its passengers to flee for their lives. In Birmingham, where an FBI informant reported that Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor had encouraged the Ku Klux Klan to attack an incoming group of freedom riders "until it looked like a bulldog had got a hold of them," the riders were severely beaten. In eerily-quiet Montgomery, a mob charged another bus load of riders, knocking John Lewis unconscious with a crate and smashing Life photographer Don Urbrock in the face with his own camera. A dozen men surrounded Jim Zwerg, a white student from Fisk University, and beat him in the face with a suitcase, knocking out his teeth. The freedom riders did not fare much better in jail. There, they were crammed into tiny, filthy cells and sporadically beaten. In Jackson, Mississippi, some male prisoners were forced to do hard labor in 100-degree heat. Others were transferred to Parchman Penitentiary, where their food was deliberately oversalted and their mattresses were removed. Sometimes the men were suspended by "wrist breakers" from the walls. Typically, the windows of their cells were shut tight on hot days, making it hard for them to breathe.
Out of jail, the freedom riders joined mass demonstrations where the violent response of local police shocked the world. In Birmingham, police loosed attack dogs into a peaceful crowd of demonstrators, and the German shepherds bit three teenagers. In Birmingham and Orangeburg, South Carolina, firemen blasted protestors with hoses set at a pressure to remove bark from trees and mortar from brick.
On "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, Alabama, police and troopers on horseback charged into a group of marchers, beating them and firing tear gas. Several weeks later the marchers trekked the 54 miles from Selma to Montgomery without incident, but afterwards four Klansmen murdered Detroit homemaker Viola Liuzzo as she drove marchers back to Selma. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his life for the movement, struck down by an assassin's bullet in Memphis, Tennessee.
When white supremacists could not halt the civil rights movement, they tried to demoralize its supporters. They bombed churches and other meeting places. They set high bail and paced trials slowly, forcing civil rights organizations to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. At a Nashville lunch counter sit-in, the store manager locked the door and turned on the insect fumigator. In St. Augustine, Florida, city officials who had promised to meet with black demonstrators at City Hall offered them an empty table and a tape recorder instead. In Selma, Sheriff Jim Clark and his deputies forced 165 students into a three-mile run, poking them with cattle prods as they ran. Random violence accompanied calculated acts. The Klan bombing of Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church killed four black girls. On the campus of the University of Mississippi, a stray bullet struck a local jukebox-repairman in a riot that killed one reporter and wounded more than 150 federal marshals. In Marion, Alabama, 26-year-old Jimmy Lee Jackson was gunned down while trying to protect his mother and grandfather from State Police. Not far away in Selma, a white Boston minister who had lost his way was clubbed to death by white vigilantes.
The more violent southern whites became, the more their actions were publicized and denounced across the nation. Increasing violence in the South's streets, jails, and public places failed to break the spirits of the freedom fighters. Indeed, it emboldened them.
Essay on the Prize
At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. There is no Negro problem. There is no southern problem. There is no northern problem. There is only an American problem. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument. Every American citizen must have the right to vote...Yet the harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes... No law that we now have on the books...can insure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it... There is no Constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong--deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country. There is no issue of States' rights or National rights. There is only the struggle for human rights.
President Lyndon B. Johnson
Introducing the Voting Rights Act to Congress, March 15, 1965
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which required equal access to public places and outlawed discrimination in employment, was a major victory of the black freedom struggle, but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was its crowning achievement. The 1965 Act suspended literacy tests and other voter tests and authorized federal supervision of voter registration in states and individual voting districts where such tests were being used. African Americans who had been barred from registering to vote finally had an alternative to the courts. If voting discrimination occurred, the 1965 Act authorized the attorney general to send federal examiners to replace local registrars.
The Act had an immediate impact. Within months of its passage on August 6, 1965, one quarter of a million new black voters had been registered, one third by federal examiners. Within four years, voter registration in the South had more than doubled. In 1965, Mississippi had the highest black voter turnout--74%--and led the nation in the number of black leaders elected. In 1969, Tennessee had a 92.1% turnout; Arkansas, 77.9%; and Texas, 73.1%.
Winning the right to vote changed the political landscape of the South. When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, barely 100 African Americans held elective office in the U.S.; by 1989 there were more than 7,200, including more than 4,800 in the South. Nearly every Black Belt county in Alabama had a black sheriff, and southern blacks held top positions within city, county, and state governments. Atlanta boasted a black mayor--Andrew Young, and so did New Orleans--Ernest Morial. Black politicians on the national level included Barbara Jordan, who represented Texas in Congress, and former mayor Young, who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Carter Administration. Julian Bond was elected to the Georgia Legislature in 1965, although political reaction to his public opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam prevented him from taking his seat until 1967. John Lewis currently represents Georgia's 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he has served since 1987. Lewis sits on the House Ways and Means and Health committees.
The enormous gains of the civil rights movement stand to last a long time. Yet the full effect of these gains is yet to be felt. "Equal rights" struggles now involve multiple races, as well as the issues of rights based upon gender and sexual orientation. Racism has lost its legal, political, and social standing, but the legacy of racism--poverty, ignorance, and disease--confronts us. "They are our enemies, not our fellow man, not our neighbor," said President Johnson at the end of his voting rights speech. "And these enemies too--poverty, disease, and ignorance--we shall overcome."
List of Sites
First African Baptist Church, Tuscaloosa
Brown Chapel AME Church, Selma
First Baptist Church, Selma
National Historic Trail & All-American Road
City of St. Jude Historic District,
U.S. Post Office & Courthouse,
Dexter Avenue Baptist Church,
Dexter Avenue Baptist Church Pastorium,
Butler Chapel AME Zion Church,
West Park (Kelly Ingram Park),
Sixteenth Street Baptist Church,
Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic
Atlanta Center University Historic
Mount Zion Baptist Church, Albany
Dorchester Academy Boys' Dormitory,
Lincolnville Historic District, St. Augustine
Howard Thurman House, Daytona Beach
All-Star Bowling Lane, Orangeburg
South Carolina College Historic District,
Modjeska Monteith Simkins House, Columbia
F.W. Woolworth Building, Greensboro
Robert Russa Moton High School,
New Kent School and George W. Watkins
School, New Kent Co.
Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC
Mary Church Terrell House, Washington, DC
Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel, Frederick Douglass Memorial Hall, and Founders Library, Washington, DC
John Philip Sousa Junior High School, Washington, DC
Paul Robeson Home, New York City
Dunbar Apartments, New York City
William Monroe Trotter House, Dorchester
W.E.B. Du Bois Homesite, Great Barrington
Elizabeth Harden Gilmore House, Charleston
Lincoln Hall, Berea College, Berea
Whitney M. Young Jr. Birthplace, Simpsonville
Oscar Stanton De Priest House, Chicago
Ida B. Wells-Barnett House, Chicago
Shelley House, St. Louis
Malcolm X House Site, Omaha
Brown v. Board of Education National
Historic Site, Topeka
Moulin Rouge Hotel, Las Vegas
Bethel AME Church, Reno
Calvary Baptist Church, Oklahoma City
Bizzell Library at the University of Oklahoma, Norman
Juanita Craft House, Dallas
Little Rock Central High School National
Historic Site, Little Rock
Daisy Bates House, Little Rock
Mason Temple, Church of God in Christ,
Lorraine Hotel, Memphis
Tougaloo College, Tougaloo
First African Baptist Church
This church's pastor, Rev. T.Y. Rogers, Jr., and the local community led a successful campaign against segregation in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In late spring 1964, the new county courthouse put up "whites only" signs in front of the bathrooms. Irate black citizens formed the Tuscaloosa Citizens for Action Committee, headed by Rev. Rogers, to challenge racially discriminatory practices. The church became demonstration headquarters and the site of many local rallies and marches. A climactic June 9 rally outside First African Baptist forced the local segregation issue into federal courts. The rally was staged to test a local ban on protest marches and took place during the 75-day filibuster of the Civil Rights Bill by southern senators. Tuscaloosa's police commissioner arrested Rev. Rogers after he refused to call off the rally. Then police charged into the crowd, pushing it back into the church. Later, hoping to force the protestors outside where they could be easily arrested, police sprayed fire hoses and hurled tear gas through the church windows. Ninety-one protestors were jailed. The violent incident spurred action on several pending and subsequent court cases. On June 26, a federal judge ordered Tuscaloosa County to remove the offensive courthouse signs, citing the 14th Amendment right to be free of "discrimination of any kind in the use and enjoyment of publicly-owned facilities."
The First African Baptist is located at 2621 9th Street in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Tours are available daily by appointment. For more information call 205-758-2833
Brown Chapel AME Church
Both the building and the members of Brown Chapel AME Church played pivotal roles in the Selma, Alabama, marches that helped lead to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The starting point for the Selma-to-Montgomery marches, Brown Chapel also hosted the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) for the first three months of 1965. Another nearby local church, First Baptist, acted as the headquarters for the organizers of the Selma Campaign--the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Brown Chapel AME Church, with its imposing twin towers and Romanesque Revival styling, was built in 1908 by a black builder--of whom little is known -- Mr. A.J. Farley. On Sunday morning (known as Bloody Sunday) March 7, 1965, despite a ban on protest marches by Governor George Wallace, about 600 black protestors gathered outside Brown Chapel to march from Selma to the state capital in Montgomery. Leading the march were the SCLC's Hosea Williams and SNCC's John Lewis. At the Edmund Pettus Bridge, six blocks from Brown Chapel, mounted troopers confronted the marchers and ordered them to disperse. The marchers stood their ground and the troopers advanced, billy clubs raised. Lewis fell, his skull fractured. Others fell, screaming, as white onlookers cheered. Then Sheriff Jim Clark's deputized posse charged the marchers, firing tear gas and swinging bullwhips and rubber tubing wrapped in barbed wire. That night, ABC interrupted its showing of the movie Judgement at Nuremberg to air footage of "Bloody Sunday." By morning, news of the event had spread to nearly every American household, and thousands of march supporters began to flock to Selma. On March 9, Martin Luther King, Jr., led a "symbolic" march to the bridge, and on March 21, after Governor Wallace's ban was overruled by Federal Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., King led the five-day march to the capital. Less than five months later President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
Brown Chapel AME Church, a National Historic Landmark, is located at 410, Martin Luther King, Jr., Street.
First Baptist Church
First Baptist Church, along with its close neighbor, Brown Chapel AME Church, played a pivotal role in the Selma, Alabama, marches that helped lead to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The members of First Baptist Church allowed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to use their church as the planning site and organizational headquarters of the Selma campaign. First Baptist Church, constructed in 1894 in the Gothic Revival style by a local black architect, Dave Benjamin West, is considered one of the most architecturally significant late-19th-century black churches in the state. Despite a ban on protest marches by Governor George Wallace, on Sunday morning, March 7, 1965, about 600 black protestors gathered outside Brown Chapel to march from Selma to the state capital in Montgomery. Leading the march were the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's (SCLC) Hosea Williams and SNCC's John Lewis. At the Edmund Pettus Bridge, six blocks from Brown Chapel, mounted troopers confronted the marchers and ordered them to disperse. The marchers stood their ground and the troopers advanced, billy clubs raised. Lewis fell, his skull fractured. Others fell, screaming, as white onlookers cheered. Then Sheriff Jim Clark's deputized posse charged the marchers, firing tear gas and swinging bullwhips and rubber tubing wrapped in barbed wire. That night, ABC interrupted its showing of the movie, Judgement at Nuremberg, to air footage of "Bloody Sunday." By morning, news of the event had spread to nearly every American household, and thousands of march supporters began to flock to Selma. On March 9, Martin Luther King, Jr., led a "symbolic" march to the bridge, and on March 21, after Governor Wallace's ban was overruled by Federal Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., King led the five-day march to the capital. Less than five months later President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
First Baptist Church is located at 709 Martin Luther King, Jr., Street.
National Historic Trail and All American Road
The Selma-to-Montgomery March for voting rights ended three weeks--and three events--that represented the political and emotional peak of the modern civil rights movement. On "Bloody Sunday," March 7, 1965, some 600 civil rights marchers headed east out of Selma on U.S. Route 80. They got only as far as the Edmund Pettus Bridge six blocks away, where state and local lawmen attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas and drove them back into Selma. Two days later on March 9, Martin Luther King, Jr., led a "symbolic" march to the bridge. Then civil rights leaders sought court protection for a third, full-scale march from Selma to the state capitol in Montgomery. Federal District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., weighed the right of mobility against the right to march and ruled in favor of the demonstrators. "The law is clear that the right to petition one's government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups...," said Judge Johnson, "and these rights may be exercised by marching, even along public highways." On Sunday, March 21, about 3,200 marchers set out for Montgomery, walking 12 miles a day and sleeping in fields. By the time they reached the capitol on Thursday, March 25, they were 25,000-strong. Less than five months after the last of the three marches, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965--the best possible redress of grievances.
In 1996 the Selma-to-Montgomery National Historic Trail was created by Congress under the National Trails System Act of 1968. Like other "historic" trails covered in the legislation, the Alabama trail is an original route of national significance in American history. An inter-agency panel of experts recommended, and the Secretary of Transportation designated the trail an "All-American Road"--a road that has national significance, cannot be replicated, and is a destination unto itself. This designation is the highest tribute a road can receive under the Federal Highway Administration's National Scenic Byways Program, created by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
City of St. Jude Historic District
Founded during the mid-1930s by Catholic priest Father Harold Purcell when segregation was the norm in the Southeast, the City of St. Jude Hospital pioneered nondiscriminatory health, education, and social services. In the 1950s, St. Jude's Church hosted an integrated prayer group, and in 1965, Martin Luther King, Jr., and 2,000 participants of the Selma-to-Montgomery March found shelter there. The night before the final march to the Capitol, City of St. Jude offered its 36 acres to the marchers, who slept on the athletic field and held a "Stars of Freedom Rally" featuring such celebrities as Odetta, Harry Belafonte, Pete Seeger, Leonard Bernstein, and Joan Baez. St. Jude's Catholic Hospital, which opened in 1951 as the first integrated hospital in the Southeast, offered help again when tragedy struck at the end of the march. Hospital staff tried to save the life of Viola Liuzzo, the Detroit homemaker who was fatally shot by Klansmen while driving marchers back to Selma. The hospital closed in 1985. In March 1990, City of St. Jude was the site of the 25th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery March. Former Governor George Wallace appeared in the doorway of the St. Jude Educational Institute as he had done years before at the University of Alabama, this time not to prevent students from entering the building but to greet civil rights supporters.
The City of St. Jude is located at 2048 West Fairview Avenue in Montgomery. Most of the hospital has been converted to apartments for low-income families. The unused section of the hospital will be converted to a National Park Service interpretive center and re-enactment site.
U.S. Post Office and Court House
Frank M. Johnson, Jr. (1918- ), Federal Judge
Thanks to a courageous and insightful federal judge--Frank M. Johnson, Jr.--this Montgomery, Alabama, courthouse became one of few official buildings in the South where civil rights claims could receive an impartial hearing and be won. In 1955, President Eisenhower appointed the 37-year-old Johnson to the U.S. District Court. The next year, following the Montgomery bus boycott, he ruled against segregated city buses. In later actions, he was the first judge to order names of qualified African Americans added to county voting rolls, and he wrote the first statewide school desegregation decree. He outlawed discrimination in Alabama's libraries, transportation centers, and agricultural extension service. He placed numerous state agencies under judicial review. After brutal beatings of Freedom Riders at Montgomery's Greyhound Terminal, he temporarily restrained the city and the Klan from future wrongs against the protestors. He helped strike down literacy tests and other unfair practices when he ordered voting registrars to apply consistent standards. One of Johnson's major accomplishments was his opening of U.S. Route 80 for the Selma-to-Montgomery March. After watching the CBS footage of "Bloody Sunday," he ruled that the right of assembly--in this case, the right to march--far outweighed the right to unobstructed sidewalks and highways. The enormity of the wrongs being protested should be the deciding factor, he said. Johnson's decisions put him at great risk. His mother's home was bombed and a cross burned in his yard. Often he and his family needed overnight protection. His actions also won the ire of law school classmate Governor George Wallace, who branded Johnson an "integrating, scalawagging, carpetbagging liar." In 1977, President Carter asked Johnson to head the FBI, but the judge refused for medical reasons. Instead, he accepted a 1979 appointment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Johnson's decisions then and earlier not only affected civil rights, they also influenced most of the public policy in the state. In 1993, Judge Johnson was the second recipient (after Thurgood Marshall) of the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award for his work for civil rights. In 1995, President Clinton awarded Judge Johnson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country's highest civilian award. President Clinton remarked that, "during 40 years on the bench, Judge Johnson made it his mission to see to it justice was done within the framework of law. In the face of unremitting social and political pressure to uphold the traditions of oppression and neglect in his native South, never once did he yield. His landmark decisions in the areas of desegregation, voting rights and civil liberties transformed our understanding of the Constitution."
The Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse (formerly the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse) is located at 15 Lee Street in Montgomery.
Dexter Avenue Baptist Church
This church was the backbone of the 1955-1956 Montgomery bus boycott--the first locally-initiated mass protest against racial discrimination and a "model" for other grass-roots demonstrations. The boycott proved how members of a black community could unite in resistance to segregation, and it heralded a new era of "direct action." The event also propelled Martin Luther King, Jr., into the national spotlight.
Years before the boycott, Dexter Avenue minister Vernon Johns sat down in the "whites-only" section of a city bus. When the driver ordered him off the bus, Johns urged other passengers to join him. On March 2, 1955, a black teenager named Claudette Colvin dared to defy bus segregation laws and was forcibly removed from another Montgomery bus. Nine months later, on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks--a 42-year-old seamstress and NAACP member--refused to give up her seat on a crowded city bus to make room for white passengers. She was arrested and jailed.
Montgomery's black citizens reacted decisively to the incident. By December 2, schoolteacher Jo Ann Robinson had mimeographed and delivered 50,000 protest leaflets around town. E.D. Nixon, a local labor leader, organized a December 4 meeting at Dexter Avenue, where local black leaders formed the Montgomery Improvement Association to spearhead a boycott and negotiate with the bus company. They named Dexter's new minister, Martin Luther King, Jr., president.
For nearly a year, buses were virtually empty in Montgomery. Boycott supporters walked to work--as many as eight miles a day--or they used a sophisticated system of carpools with volunteer drivers and dispatchers. Some took station-wagon "rolling taxis" donated by local churches.
Montgomery City Lines lost between 30,000 and 40,000 bus fares each day during the boycott, but the company reluctantly desegregated its buses only after November 13, 1956, when the Supreme Court ruled Alabama's bus segregation laws unconstitutional.
Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church (formerly Dexter Avenue Baptist Church) is a National Historic Landmark. It is located at 454 Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, Alabama. Individual tours of the church are available Tuesday-Friday at 10:00am to 4:00 pm and Saturday from 10:00am to 2:00pm. There is a fee for a tour. For information on group tours, call 334-263-3970.
Pastorium, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church
Martin Luther King, Jr., lived in this parsonage when he was minister of the church between 1954 and 1960. On January 31, 1956, following the successful Montgomery bus boycott, King's home was bombed by local segregationists. At the time, King was at a meeting, but his wife Coretta was at the parsonage with her ten-week-old daughter Yolanda Denice, also known as "Yoki." After King had verified that both were unhurt, he addressed the angry crowd of African Americans outside. "Don't do anything panicky," he advised. "I did not start this boycott. I was asked by you to serve as your spokesman. I want it to be known the length and breadth of this land that if I am stopped, this movement will not stop." In February 1957, when King was alone in the parsonage with Morehouse College friend Bob Williams, something disturbed King. He told Williams they should leave the parsonage immediately. Several hours later, after the two men had gone to Williams' house, a bomb exploded outside the parsonage, crushing the front part of a house and shattering the windows of three parked taxis, injuring the drivers. At the empty parsonage, 12 sticks of dynamite lay on the front porch. Only a few days after the bombing, police arrested seven white men. Two of them admitted to the crime, but despite their signed confessions, they were acquitted by a jury.
The Pastorium is located at 309 South Jackson Street in Montgomery and is expected to be open to the public in January 1999. To arrange a tour of the church, call the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church at 334-263-3970.
Butler Chapel AME Zionist Church
This church was the focal point for a multi-year grass-roots project that united and empowered African Americans, rural and urban, educated and uneducated, to fight for the right to vote. Butler Chapel AME Zion Church, an imposing brick building located on a hill west of downtown Tuskegee, is a prominent landmark in the historically black neighborhood known as Zion Hill. The building, the second church on this site, was constructed about 1877. Originally built in wood, the church was sided with brick in the 1940s. In a 1957 effort to minimize the number of black voters in Tuskegee, Alabama's municipal elections, the state legislature simply redrew the town's political districts, placing Tuskegee Institute and all but a small fraction of black residents outside city limits. To protest this action, Tuskegee's middle-class black community and Macon County's poor black citizens joined forces in a seven-year "Crusade for Citizenship." On June 25, 1957, 3,000 area black residents showed up at Butler Chapel for the first of many weekly mass meetings. Only 500 attendees could fit into the church's small sanctuary; the rest listened outside. Charles Gomillion, a professor at Tuskegee Institute and the driving force of the black Tuskegee Civic Association, urged the crowd to join a "Trade with Friends" boycott of local white merchants. "We are going to buy goods and services from those who help us, from those who make no effort to hinder us, from those who recognize us as first-class citizens," he promised. The boycott ended in early 1961 when city boundaries were returned to their original position, after the Supreme Court ruled that a legislature could not single out an isolated segment of a racial minority for discriminatory treatment.
Butler Chapel is located at 1002 N. Church Street in Tuskegee, Alabama. A museum is located in the church basement. Tours can be arranged by calling 334-727-3550, after 1 p.m., or 334-727-3601.
During the first week of May 1963, Birmingham police and firemen attacked civil rights demonstrators, many of whom were children, in the streets bordering this park. The violence raised a nationwide public outcry, hastening integration in America's most segregated city.
Birmingham, site of the first mass beatings of freedom riders, was selected by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) for a massive protest campaign. Kelly Ingram Park (historically known as West Park), was an assembly point for participants in the SCLC's Project "C," (for Confrontation)--sit-ins, boycotts, marches, and jailings designed to end segregation in Birmingham. Under the on site direction of SCLC President Martin Luther King, Jr., and local SCLC affiliate Fred Shuttlesworth, department stores were targeted for boycotts and protest marches organized. Dr. King was arrested and held in solitary confinement for three days, during which he wrote, smuggled out of jail, and had printed his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," a profoundly moving justification for the moral necessity of non-violent resistance to unjust laws.
When police filled the jails with mass arrests and depleted the ranks of adult demonstrators, the SCLC called on the city's children to join the protests. On May 2, under orders from Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, police arrested 600 child picketers (some as young as six years of age); by the next day, 1,000 children had been jailed. In the days that followed, firemen blasted the protestors, including children, with high-pressure fire hoses, and police used their nightsticks indiscriminately. Police K-9 units loosed their dogs into crowds of peaceful demonstrators, pinning down one woman and severely wounding three teenagers. One young bystander was whirled around by a policeman into the jaws of his German Shepherd. An Associated Press photographer standing nearby captured the incident, which quickly became the symbol of the unrest in Birmingham.
Fearful of a race riot and worried about lost business, local businesses made a "pact" with the SCLC, but Alabama's Governor Wallace disavowed any settlement and Bull Connor urged whites to boycott the stores involved. To prevent any violence that would undermine the agreement, President Kennedy ordered 3,000 Army troops to the outskirts of the city. Local merchants removed their "whites only" signs and desegregated their lunch counters. The newly-elected mayor repealed the city's Jim Crow laws and eventually desegregated the library, city golf courses, public buildings, and finally the schools.
Kelly Ingram Park (formerly West Park) occupies a square block between 16th and 17th Streets and between 5th and 6th Avenues North, in Birmingham, Alabama.
Sixteenth Street Baptist Church
On Sunday morning, September 15, 1963, the Ku Klux Klan bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, killing four girls. This murderous act shocked the nation and galvanized the civil rights movement.
Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley were dressed in their "Youth Sunday" best, ready to lead the 11:00 adult service at the church, which since its construction in 1911 had served as the center of life for Birmingham's African American community. Only a few minutes before the explosion, they had been together in the basement women's room, excitedly talking about their first days at school. The bombing came without warning.
Following the tragic event, white strangers visited the grieving families to express their sorrow. At the funeral for three of the girls (one family preferred a separate, private funeral), Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke about life being "as hard as crucible steel." More than 8,000 mourners, including 800 clergymen of both races, attended the service. No city officials braved the crowds to attend.
News stories circulated about symbolic incidents that occurred at the time of the bombing. For example, the image of Jesus' face was knocked cleanly out of the only surviving stained-glass window in the church's east wall, and the church clock stopped at exactly 10:22 a.m.
The deaths of the children followed by the loss of President Kennedy two months later gave birth to a tide of grief and anger--a surge of emotional momentum that helped ensure the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Sixteenth Street Baptist Church is located in Birmingham, Alabama, at the intersection of 16th Street and 6th Avenue. Tours are given 10 am to 4 pm, Tuesday through Friday and by appointment only on Saturdays. Groups should call 205-251-9402 to make arrangements.
Martin Luther King Jr., National Historic Site
Martin Luther King, Jr., (1929-1968), minister, civil rights leader
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birth home, church, and grave site comprise this National Historic Site and Preservation District along with the previously National Register-listed Martin Luther King, Jr., Historic District and the historic black commercial area, the Sweet Auburn Historic District. All of these properties are important in understanding both the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement.
King was born in a frame house at 501 Auburn. Ebenezer Baptist Church, where for eight years he shared the pulpit with his father, is a short walk away at the corner of Auburn and Jackson. Next door to the church, a memorial park surrounds King's crypt, nestled in a reflecting pool. Across from the church at 449 Auburn is the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., which continues King's legacy and work.
The historic districts included in the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site and Preservation District were the center of life for Atlanta's African American community in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Auburn Avenue was the main thoroughfare through the area, and the phenomenal growth of black businesses along the avenue led to it being called "the richest Negro street in the world." Following the Civil War, African Americans built businesses, residences, social and educational buildings, and churches along Auburn Avenue, and nearby streets. Many of these buildings remain today vital parts of the community.
Although King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his international stature did not preclude his involvement with local issues. For example, he joined students in a fall 1960 sit-in at Rich's Department Store--an event that landed him in jail for the first time. On another occasion in late 1964, King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, headquartered in the Sweet Auburn Historic District, sided with black workers against Scripto, Inc., manufacturer of pencils and pens. At issue was a wage increase given to skilled workers, mostly white, but not to unskilled workers, largely black.
After King was assassinated, his body lay in state at Spelman College. Ralph Abernathy, who had been with King since the Montgomery Bus Boycott, conducted the April 9 funeral service at Ebenezer attended by civil rights leaders, black entertainers and athletes and the four presidential candidates--Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, and Eugene McCarthy. More than 60,000 people listened over loudspeakers outside, and as many as 50,000 joined in the funeral procession afterwards. King's casket was borne by a mule-driven farm cart, symbolizing his support of the rights of poor people.
The Martin Luther King, Jr., Historic Site and Preservation District is roughly bounded by Irwin Avenue and Courtland, Randolph, and Chamberlain Streets. The National Park Service's Visitor Center, at 450 Auburn Avenue, NE, features exhibits about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement. The park is open daily from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm; hours from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day, 9:00 am to 6:00 pm; closed Thanksgiving Day, December 25, and January 1. Call 404-331-5190, or click here for more information.
Atlanta University Center District
This sprawling six-campus university boasts four institutions prominent in the civil rights movement: Morehouse College ("the black Harvard"), Spelman College, Atlanta University, and West Hunter Street Baptist Church. Martin Luther King, Jr., graduated from Morehouse College, and Morehouse students Lonnie King and Julian Bond organized sit-ins, boycotts, and marches throughout the city. Spelman student Ruby Doris Smith helped lead freedom rides, sit-ins, jail-ins, and voter registration drives. Civil rights leaders W.E.B. Du Bois and Whitney Young, Jr., taught and chaired departments at Atlanta University. Rev. Ralph Abernathy pastored West Hunter when he was head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Student-organized demonstrations in Atlanta began in March 1960 with 80 well-dressed students and eight well-planned, simultaneous protests. Bond's group staged a sit-in at City Hall's municipal cafeteria, in front of which hung a sign, "PUBLIC IS WELCOME." Lonnie King and 35 protestors trooped to Rich's Department Store. There they were joined by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who shortly was to experience his first night in an Atlanta jail.
Later in the Atlanta movement, student protestors launched a publicity campaign to involve black adults on the periphery--black customers with buying power at Rich's. "Close out your charge account with segregation," urged the students. "Open up your account with freedom." Virtually all the black adults in Atlanta heeded the student slogan, and Rich's felt the pinch.
In March 1961, black elders worked out a compromise with city merchants. In exchange for an immediate halt to protests, store managers agreed to integrate their lunch counters, though not until court-ordered school desegregation took effect in September.
Within the Atlanta University Center, Stone Hall (now known as Fairchild-Stone Hall), was the focal point of university activities. It is a National Historic Landmark.
The Atlanta University Center Historic District is roughly bordered by the transit right-of-way, Northside Drive, Walnut, Fair, Roach, West End Drive, and Euralee and Chestnut Streets. The grounds of the University are open to the public.
Mt. Zion Baptist Church
Ain't gonna let nobody, Lordy, turn me 'round,
turn me round, turn me 'round.
Ain't gonna let nobody, Lordy, turn me 'round.
I'm gonna keep on a-walkin', Lord,
marching up to freedom land.
The a cappella singing that became the trademark and the unifying force of the civil rights movement was introduced at this church by three student "Freedom Singers"--Ruth A. Harris, Bernice Johnson, and Cordell Reagon. Constructed in 1906, this brick church building, designed in the Late Gothic style, served as the religious, educational, and social center of Albany's African American community. Mt. Zion also hosted many of the mass meetings of the ill-fated "Albany Movement"--a coalition of community groups formed in October 1961 after a sit-in in the "whites-only" section of the Trailways Bus Terminal. A month later when white officials arrested hundreds of demonstrators, Martin Luther King, Jr., came to Albany, only to be arrested himself. The arrests failed to capture national sympathy largely because of the tactics of police chief Laurie Pritchett, who kept his officers from using force against demonstrators while in public view. Pritchett used a similar strategy months later after a pregnant black woman was severely beaten by one of his officers and enraged black onlookers retaliated. He pointed reporters to "them nonviolent rocks." Internal rivalries and resentments also plagued the Albany Movement. For example, some student leaders thought King was too "nonviolent" and his aides too "high-handed." By late 1962 much of the tension had eased, but the Albany Movement was inactive and the town still segregated.
Mt. Zion Baptist is located at 326 Whitney Avenue in Albany, Georgia. The Albany Civil Rights Museum at Old Mt. Zion Church opened on November 16, 1998, for more information, click here.
Dorchester Academy Boys' Dormitory
Dorchester Academy, an abandoned Congregationalist missionary school not far from Savannah, Georgia, was one of two sites where the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) held its citizenship education workshops during the 1960s. In less than two years, the SCLC trained close to 2,000 teachers and leaders, who in turn taught more than 10,500 others in their home communities. Septima Clark, veteran educator and daughter of a slave, took in busloads of adult students and in week-long sessions taught them everything from basic reading, writing, and math to sections of state constitutions they would encounter in voter registration "quizzes." The students also learned the concepts and tactics of nonviolent direct action.
The SCLC's leadership training center was supported by a grant from the Marshall Field Foundation, which decided to support the civil rights movement by steering its philanthropy into voter registration. Field Foundation representative (and later mayor of Atlanta) Andrew Young was the school's first director.
Dorchester Academy was also the planning center for the SCLC's successful March 1963 campaign to end segregation in Birmingham, Alabama. The "Project C" (C for "Confrontation") blueprint involved ending segregation in Birmingham through four consecutive, increasingly-stronger steps--first, sit-ins and nightly mass meetings; second, a boycott of the downtown business district; third, mass marches; and fourth (if necessary), appeals to outsiders to descend on the city. Wyatt Walker, Project C coordinator, stressed that participants must not back down once the plan was in motion because some demoralized protestors might then become violent. Project C coordinators should be prepared to have at least 1,000 people in jail at one time, said Walker, and to keep the average jailgoer inside for more than four days (thereby putting economic pressure on the city).
Dorchester Academy Boys' Dormitory is located on U.S. Route 82 in Midway, Georgia. Currently undegoing a restoration, the academy is still used for community activities and is open to the public. Visit www.dorchesteracademy.com for further information.
Lincolnville Historic District
St. Augustine, Florida, is the oldest city in the United States, and until 1964, one of the most segregated. A dentist and NAACP representative named Robert Hayling from the historic subdivision of Lincolnville initiated the protest actions that eventually ended discrimination in the old city. Lincolnville, established in 1866, was the major black residential subdivision in St. Augustine, and many of its residents were politically active. The historic district contains a large collection of 19th and early 20th century residences and churches.
In 1963, Hayling organized campaigns against local segregated public facilities catering to tourists. He also urged the White House not to support the 400th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine set to take place in September 1965. When both efforts failed, he appealed to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) for help.
The SCLC called on New England universities to send volunteers to the city for March 1964 demonstrations and asked Lincolnville residents to provide food and lodging. By the end of one week of protests, police had arrested hundreds of demonstrators, including a delegation of rabbis and the 72-year-old mother of the governor of Massachusetts. White vigilantes terrorized local businesses that dared to serve African Americans.
In early June, Martin Luther King, Jr., came to St. Augustine and took part in a sit-in at Monson's Motor Lodge. The same month, the SCLC arranged for baseball star Jackie Robinson to address a civil rights rally in Lincolnville. The publicity surrounding these two events hastened Congress' passage of the Civil Rights Act on June 20, 1964.
Local segregationists initially refused to comply with the new Act. For example, when Monson's manager noticed African Americans in the motel swimming pool, he threw acid into the water, then drained the pool and stationed guards around it. Angry white mobs also beat "wade-in" demonstrators at local beaches as well as the police assigned to protect them.
The end of segregation in St. Augustine demonstrated that even the most closed communities could not uphold segregation in the face of determined resistance.
The Lincolnville Historic District, located in St. Augustine, Florida, is bounded by DeSoto Place and Cedar, Riberia, Cerro, and Washington Streets.
Howard Thurman House
Howard Thurman (1900-1981), minister, educator, civil rights leader
Author, philosopher, theologian, and educator Howard Thurman spent most of his childhood in this late 19th-century, two-story, wood frame vernacular residence. In quiet moments before a civil rights march, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., used to read from Thurman's Jesus and the Disinherited--a book that laid much of the philosophical foundation for a nonviolent civil rights movement. According to Thurman, fear, deception, and hatred prohibit a peaceful end to racial bigotry. These emotions isolate African Americans and whites, he wrote, and prevent either group from seeing the other as individuals free of stereotyped expectation. Only by overwhelming such restraints with love, said Thurman, can oppressed peoples surmount persecution. Their love is rooted in the "deep river" of faith:
It may twist and turn, fall back on itself and start again, stumble over an infinite series of hindering rocks, but at last the river must answer the call to the sea.
In 1923, Howard Thurman graduated from Morehouse College as valedictorian. After he was ordained a Baptist minister in 1925, he became the first black dean at Boston University and then the first dean of Rankin Chapel at Howard University in the District of Columbia. In the latter position, he traveled broadly, heading Christian missions and meeting with world figures like Mahatma Gandhi. When Thurman asked Gandhi what message he should take back to America, Gandhi said he regretted not having made nonviolence more visible worldwide and suggested some American black man would succeed where he had failed. Ebony magazine called Thurman one of the 50 most important figures in African American history, and Life rated him among the 12 best preachers in the nation.
The Howard Thurman House is located at 614 Whitehall Street in Daytona Beach, Florida. It is not open to the public.
All Star Bowling Lane
All Star Bowling Lane--Orangeburg, South Carolina's only bowling alley--played a pivotal role in the February 8, 1968, "Orangeburg Massacre" on the campus of South Carolina State College. In this confrontation between black students and police, three students were killed and 27 injured.
In 1968, the segregated bowling alley was a rarity in Orangeburg because most public places in the city were integrated. Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, local black leaders and members of the white business community had tried to persuade All Star to desegregate. Their efforts and simultaneous appeals to the U.S. Justice Department failed. All Star's manager claimed that bowling alleys were not covered under the Act. Local African Americans argued that since All Star had a snack bar, it was indeed covered under the Act--specifically, under the interstate commerce provision in the public accommodations section.
On Monday night, February 6, a group of black students from nearby South Carolina State and Claflin Colleges came to the bowling alley and refused to leave. The next night, another group returned and 15 were arrested. On February 8, 300 students appeared in the parking lot in front of All Star, AND were met by 100 local, county, and state law enforcement officers. As students began moving forward, the officers beat them with batons. While the student demonstrators worked their way back to the colleges, they broke car and store windows, and Governor Robert E. McNair mobilized a National Guard unit.
The confrontation between students and police was the most violent incident in South Carolina's civil rights history except for the February 8 "Orangeburg Massacre." Both events were typical of the tense times in the period leading up to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1968.
All Star Triangle Bowl, formerly All Star Bowling Lane, is located at 1543 Russell Street in Orangeburg, South Carolina. It is open from 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. on weekdays and 2 p.m. to midnight on weekends.
South Carlonia State College Historic District
Students at this black college organized sit-ins that contributed to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Four years later, they led protests resulting in "The Orangeburg Massacre," which pointed out that passage of the Act was not the end of the struggle. The South Carolina State College Historic District is the core of the historic campus at South Carolina State University. The district consists of ten brick Classical Revival style academic buildings constructed between 1917 and 1969, which housed classrooms, laboratories, the library, offices, and the law school. The district also includes a 1920s landscaped square with a 1969 monument erected and dedicated to the memory of three students who lost their lives in the Orangeburg Massacre of February 8, 1968.
Orangeburg, South Carolina, was one of 40 cities that experienced student protests in March 1960. After several weeks of unsuccessful protests at city lunch counters, South Carolina State's Charles McDew led 1,000 marchers downtown. Police, firemen, and state troopers intercepted the students, firing tear gas and full-pressure water hoses into the crowd. Police arrested nearly 400 students.
"The Orangeburg Movement" Like the Birmingham Campaign a few months earlier, Orangeburg's mass movement focused on desegregating public facilities. On July 31, 1963, a South Carolina State student launched the movement by refusing to leave a local restaurant. Three weeks later, movement leaders demanded that City Council desegregate public accommodations, comply with court-ordered school desegregation, and expand job opportunities for African Americans. Mass demonstrations, which by now included children, continued until the passage of the Civil Rights Act on June 2, 1964.
"The Orangeburg Massacre" On February 8, 1968, two days after police and students clashed in a race riot at segregated All Star Bowling Lanes, violence broke out again, this time on the campus of South Carolina State. Students set grassfires and tried to burn down a vacant house. A highway patrolman was hit in the face by a bannister from the house, and a number of patrolmen suddenly fired into a crowd of students, killing three and injuring 27. Statues of the students who died--Samuel Hammond, Henry Smith, and Delano Middleton--were later erected on campus. In the first federal trial of police officers for using excessive force at a campus protest, all nine defendants were acquitted.
South Carolina State University is located at 300 College Street in Orangeburg. The grounds of the campus are open to the public.
Modjeska Monteith Simkins House
Modjeska Monteith Simkins (1899-1992),
civil rights advocate
Modjeska Monteith Simkins was an important leader of African-American public health reform, social reform and the civil rights movement in South Carolina. Born in Columbia, Simkins attended elementary school, high school, and Benedict College and received a bachelor of arts degree in 1921. The same year, she began teaching at Booker T. Washington High School. Because public schools in Columbia did not allow married women to teach, she was asked to resign when she married Andrew Simkins in 1929.
In 1931, Simkins entered the field of public health as the Director of Negro Work for the South Carolina Anti-Tuberculosis Association, and became the state's only full-time, statewide African-American public health worker. For decades prior to the 1930s, southern racism and poverty had created an alarming increase in deaths among African Americans due to tuberculosis, pellagra, and other illnesses. By creating alliances with influential white and African-American groups and raising funds, Simkins made a substantial impact on the health of African Americans in South Carolina. It was during this period in Simkin's life that she and her family moved to 2025 Marion Street. Simkins used this late 19th/early 20th-century vernacular house as her residence, office, meeting place, and for lodging of civil rights associates. Simkins' guests included Thurgood Marshall, who stayed here when hotels in the city were closed to African Americans.
In 1942 Simkins lost her position with the Anti-Tuberculosis Association--partly due to her increasing involvement with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In 1939, when the South Carolina NAACP was formed, Simkins was already a member of the executive board of the local Columbia NAACP branch and chair of its program committee. Simkins became one of the founders of the state conference, elected to the first executive board, and the first chair of the state programs committee. In 1941 she was elected Secretary of the state conference--the only woman to serve as an officer. During her tenure as Secretary (1941-1957), her work helped the State move towards racial equality. From 1943 to 1945 she was instrumental in gaining teacher approval and support for teacher equalization lawsuits in Sumter and Columbia, South Carolina. Perhaps her most significant work took place in 1950 with the South Carolina federal court case of Briggs v. Elliott. Working with the Reverend J. A. DeLaine, president of the Clarenden County NAACP, Simkins helped write the declaration for the school lawsuit that asked for the equalization of Clarenden County black and white schools. The Clarenden County case was eventually reworked to become one of several individual cases set up to directly challenge the “separate but equal” doctrine in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka in 1954. Because her activism was at times controversial, her life and home became targets. An unknown person shot at her house during the time she was active with the NAACP, and she was accused of subversive activities and investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Simkins was able to serve in leadership positions that were traditionally unavailable to women in the civil rights movement. In 1981 she was honored by a coalition of civil rights groups, who established an endowment in her name to provide income for activists working for the causes of the underprivileged. Hundreds of people attended a memorial service following her death on April 5, 1992, and Judge Matthew J. Perry stated, “she probably will be remembered as a woman who challenged everyone. She challenged the white political leadership of the state to do what was fair and equitable among all people and she challenged black citizens to stand up and demand their rightful place in the state and the nation.”
The Modjeska Monteith Simkins House is located at 2025 Marion St., Columbia, South Carolina. The Collaborative for Community Trust, a non-profit organization in Columbia dedicated to addressing issues of social change, has recently stablized the house, turned it into the organization’s headquarters and has established the Modjeska Monteith Simkins Center for Justice, Ethics and Human Rights there dedicated to Simkins and her work. For more information call 803-748-8644 or visit the Collaborative of Community Trust website at http://www.collab4community.org. Additionally, the Simkins Papers have been microfilmed by the University of South Carolina and scholars wishing to study the collection may borrow the film through their local library via interlibrary loan.
F.W. Woolworth Building
(Downtown Greensboro Historic District)
The Woolworth's Five & Dime in Greensboro, North Carolina, is historically significant for a unique sit-in that empowered student activists for the next decade and changed the face of segregation forever. On February 1, 1960, when four freshmen from the Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina (listed in the National Register) took vacant seats at the store's "whites-only" lunch counter, they had no idea what might happen. Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, David Richmond, and Ezell Blair, Jr., sat down, ordered coffee and waited. The waitress ignored them, as did the store manager and a pacing policeman. Some white customers taunted the students, while two others patted them on the back, whispering "Ah, you should have done it ten years ago." The next day, the four young men returned with 19 supporters. By the third day, the number had risen to 85, including white and black students from neighboring colleges. Before the week was out, there were 400. They demonstrated in shifts so they wouldn't miss classes. Local officials asked for a two-week moratorium in which to consider solutions. Meanwhile, energized students staged smaller sit-ins in seven other North Carolina cities as well as in Hampton, Virginia, and Nashville, Tennessee. By summer, 33 southern cities, including Greensboro, had integrated their restaurants and lunch counters. One year later, 126 cities had taken the same step.
The F.W. Woolworth Building on South Elm Street (the Northeast Shopping Center) is part of the Downtown Greensboro Historic District. The building is being converted to a civil rights museum.
Robert Russa Moton High School
A student-led strike at this Virginia school played a significant role in ending segregated "separate but equal" schools throughout the nation. In 1896, the Supreme Court had ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that the segregation of races in public facilities was constitutional if the separate facilities were equal.
Robert Russa Moton High School, constructed in 1939, is a one-story, simply designed brick building containing eight classrooms, an office, and an auditorium. Moton High was typical of the all-black schools in Prince Edward County, Virginia, during the period. It had twice as many students as it was designed for and had no gym or cafeteria. The highest-paid teacher at Moton earned less than the lowest paid white teacher in the county.
In April 1951, 16 year-old Barbara Johns took action. She got an accomplice to phone the school's principal and ask him to go to the bus terminal on the pretext of picking up two truants. While he was gone, she convinced the students to go on strike the following day to demand a better school. A NAACP organizer convinced the parents of the striking students that the strike would succeed only if the students attacked segregation head-on, through the courts.
In 1953, the NAACP lost Davis v. The County School Board of Prince Edward County in a federal district court but won the suit a year later in the Supreme Court through Brown v. Board of Education.
The Commonwealth of Virginia led the "massive resistance" movement against the Supreme Court decision by threatening to close its public schools. The schools in Prince Edward County were closed from 1959 to 1964, making it the only county in the nation to close its public schools for an extended period to avoid desegregation.
Robert Russa Moton High School, a National Historic Landmark, is located at the intersection of South Main Street and Griffin Boulevard in Farmville, Virginia. To learn more about current efforts to convert Moton High School into a Civil Rights Museum, click here.
New Kent School and George W. Watkins School
The New Kent School and the George W. Watkins School, located in New Kent County, Virginia, are associated with the most significant public school desegregation case the U.S. Supreme Court decided after Brown v. Board of Education. The 1968 Green v. New Kent County decision defined the standards by which the Court judged whether a violation of the U.S Constitution had been remedied in school desegregation cases. Henceforth, a decade of massive resistance to school desegregation in the South from 1955 to 1964, would be replaced by an era of massive integration from 1968 to 1973, as the Court placed an affirmative duty on school boards to integrate schools. The New Kent and Watkins schools illustrate the typical characteristics of a southern rural school system that achieved token desegregation following Brownand stand as a symbol to the modern civil rights movement of 1954 to 1970 efforts to expand the rights of African Americans in the United States.
In the second Brown decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1955, public school systems were ordered to desegregate "with all deliberate speed;" leaving the pace and method up to state legislation and district courts. Cooperation between the Federal courts and local authorities in this process was not forthcoming. Beginning with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Attorney General had authority to file school desegregation cases (Title IV) and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was empowered to withhold Federal funds from school districts that continued to discriminate (Title VI). One of the ways in which school districts could qualify for Federal financial assistance again was to submit a plan for voluntary desegregation. Acceptable plans were either freedom of choice, geographic attendance areas, or a combination of both. Under freedom of choice, students chose which school they wished to attend.
In March 1965, black plaintiffs in New Kent County in Virginia filed suit in the U.S. District Court to end the maintenance of separate schools for the races. The Watkins and New Kent schools are located in a small, rural school district in eastern Virginia. Both schools spanned elementary to high school. The county school board, supported by Virginia law, had failed to desegregate the schools for 10 years after Brown. Although the county was residentially integrated, all white students attended the New Kent School and all black students attended the Watkins School. In August 1965, facing the loss of Federal funds posed by the Civil Rights Act, the school board adopted a freedom of choice plan whereby students entering the first or eighth grades had to select one of the two schools to attend. After three years of the freedom of choice plan in New Kent County, no whites attended Watkins and 155 African Americans attended New Kent, leaving 85 percent of African Americans in the system at Watkins.
Green v. County School Board proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court along with two companion cases. In their lawsuit, the black plaintiffs argued that the freedom of choice plan in practice operated to perpetuate the racially dual school system. The Court found that the county had been operating a dual system of schools as ruled unconstitutional in Brown, down to "every facet of school operations--faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities." Its 1954-55 desegregation decisions put an "affirmative duty" on school boards to abolish dual schools and to establish "unitary" systems. Rational for the Court's decision were factors identified in the 1965 to 1966 reports of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights which found that freedom of choice was unlikely to work because of fear of retaliation and hostility from the white community, harassment by white classmates, exclusion for school activites, inability to afford the special fees at these school and the level of dress expected, improvements in facilities and equipment at all-black schools, and public officials who influenced parents to keep their children in all-black schools. The Green case was typical of the findings of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that cast doubt on the effectiveness of freedom of choice plans in integrating schools. The move from prohibiting segregation to requiring integration began.
The New Kent School is located at 11825 New Kent Hwy. in New Kent, Virginia, and the George W. Watkins School, is located at 6501 New Kent Hwy. in Quinton, Virginia. They are still in use as educational facilities.
New Kent School and the George W. Watkins School are also the subjects of the online-lesson plan New Kent School and the George W. Watkins School: From Freedom of Choice to Integration, produced by Teaching with Historic Places, a National Register program that offers classroom-ready lesson plans on places listed in the Register. To learn more, visit the Teaching with Historic Places home page.
The Lincoln Memorial has been the site of civil rights demonstrations for nearly six decades. On its steps Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke of his dream for America:
...In spite of the difficulties of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama...will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls...I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight...
...From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring,...we will be able to speed up that day when all God's children...will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!"
King's speech was the grand finale of the August 28, 1963, "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom." The march, led by union leader A. Philip Randolph and organizer Bayard Rustin, drew 200,000 supporters, 50,000 of them white. They included clergy of every faith, students, blue-collar and white-collar workers, and celebrities like Harry Belafonte, Sammy Davis, Jr., Marlon Brando, James Garner, Joan Baez, and Bob Dylan. Robert Weisbrot, author of Freedom Bound, called the march "the largest political assembly in American history." On August 22, 2003 the Martin Luther King, Jr. Inscription Dedication unveiled the commemoration of the “I Have a Dream” speech with a keynote presentation by Coretta Scott King. The work, an inscription in the granite approach to the Lincoln Memorial, marks the location where Dr. King spoke to the crowd, which assembled for the March on Washington.
Of the other civil rights events at the Lincoln Memorial, perhaps none other has been as celebrated as the Easter Sunday 1939 concert by contralto Marian Anderson, who sang to 75,000 people gathered on the grounds. As an African American Anderson had previously been denied the right to perform at Constitution Hall, owned by the then all-white Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). As a result First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who resigned from the DAR because of the incident, worked in tandem with the Marian Anderson Citizens Committe, the NAACP, and other artistic and civil rights organizations to arrange and publicized the Lincoln Memorial concert.
The Lincoln Memorial, administered by the National Park Service, is located in West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C. and is open from 8:00 a.m. to 11:45 p.m., every day except Christmas. Call 202-426-6841, or click here for more information.
Mary Church Terrell House
Mary Church Terrell (1863-1954), teacher, author, civil rights leader
This house was the home of Memphis-born Mary Church Terrell, who at age 86 led the successful fight to integrate eating places in the District of Columbia.
Local integration laws dating back to 1872 and 1873 had disappeared in the 1890s when the District Code was written. The laws had required all eating-place proprietors "to serve any respectable, well-behaved person regardless of color, or face a $1,000 fine and forfeiture of their license." Terrell launched a campaign to reinstate these anti-discrimination laws. On February 28, 1950, she and several colleagues entered segregated Thompson Restaurant. When they were refused service, they promptly filed a lawsuit. In the three years pending a decision in District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Terrell targeted other restaurants, this time using tactics such as boycotts, picketing, and sit-ins. Finally, on June 8, 1953, the court ruled that segregated eating places in Washington, D.C., were unconstitutional.
Terrell is responsible for other civil rights gains. Again in her 80s, she succeeded in persuading the local chapter of the National Association of University Women to admit black members. Earlier in her life, she was president of the National Association of Colored Women, founder of the NAACP's Executive Committee, member of a committee investigating alleged police mistreatment of African Americans, and the first black woman in the U.S. to earn an appointment to a school board.
The Mary Church Terrell House, a National Historic Landmark, is located at 326 T Street, N.W. in Washington, D.C. It is not open to the public.
Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel, Frederick Douglass Memorial Hall, and Founders Library
Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel, Frederick Douglass Memorial Hall, and Founders Library at Howard University in Washington, DC, were important settings for this institution's role in the legal establishment of racially desegregated public education. Two nationally recognized leaders of that fight, Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall, were closely associated with Howard University. From 1929, Howard Law School became an educational training ground, through the vision of Charles Hamilton Houston, for the development of activist black lawyers dedicated to securing the civil rights of all people of color. Howard University also provided preparation of the legal strategy presented by Thurgood Marshall and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's (NAACP) Legal Defense Fund leading to the historic decisions in Brown v. Board of Education ending segregation in education. The university represents the role that institutions of higher learning played in bringing about racial desegregation in education. Howard University led the country in the education of civil rights attorneys dedicated to legally securing desegregation, the academic research supporting the unconstitutionality of segregation, and the community outreach needed to challenge and define the interpretation of the United States Constitution in American society. No other university provided the same level of support to the desegregation fight.
The graduates of Howard Law School, Houston and other faculty, litigated many of the cases involving challenges in education. In fact, nine of the 10 lawyers who argued Brown were graduates of or professors at Howard Law School. The best known graduate was Thurgood Marshall, who, when appointed in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, became the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. After obtaining his undergraduate degree from Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, Marshall graduated from Howard Law School in 1933 and immediately began his campaign against segregation, providing counsel in a host of civil rights cases. When Marshall became director-council of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in 1938 he directed the legal attack on segregation at all educational levels, arguing successfully in Sipuel v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents (1948), McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (1950), and Sweatt v. Painter (1950). Marshall served as lead attorney on Brown, capitalizing on his previous desegregation success. In addition to producing a cadre of civil rights attorneys through the law school, the university contributed to the preparation and presentation of the Legal Defense Fund strategy. Graduates of the university, arguing in groundbreaking litigation, looked to their alma mater to provide research, expert testimony, and legal critiques of their litigation efforts.
Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel, Founders Library, and Frederick Douglass Memorial Hall are located on the main campus of Howard University in Northwest Washington, DC. They are still in use as educational facilities.
John Philip Sousa Junior High School
The John Philip Sousa Junior High School, a National Historic Landmark, is associated with the struggle to desegregate schools in the nation's capitol. Unlike any other school system in the country, the public schools of Washington, D.C., emerged from a municipal government system that was largely dependent upon congressional support. But like other schools of the South, assignment based on race was the rule that continued up to the desegregation of the school system in 1954. In September 1950, black children were denied admission to the then all-white Sousa School in an orchestrated move to legally challenge federally segregated schools in the District of Columbia. This denial led to the court case Bolling v. Sharpe, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided the same day as the four public school segregation cases combined in Brown v. Board of Education. These cases were the basis for the landmark decision that struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine governing public policy with regard to race. The school stands as a symbol of the lengthy conflict that ultimately led to the racial desegregation of public schools by the Federal government.
Between 1930 and 1950, the black population in the District of Columbia doubled. For the first time, Federal government job opportunities for African Americans became available in the New Deal program of the 1930s, and opportunities also arose for African Americans in the service sectors and skilled markets. During this time the black student population increased from 33 percent to 50 percent. Overcrowding in black schools particularly worsened in the District as World War II halted school construction. Between 1941 and 1947 about 10 percent of the black student population went on double or even triple shifts, while white schools had rooms to spare. School administrators planned to construct new schools for the long-term, but as an immediate fix turned 21 all-white schools to all-black schools. This was resented by white parents, and also black parents who viewed the schools as "hand-me-downs."
In late 1949, a group of Anacostia neighborhood parents, the Consolidated Parents Group, joined with James Nabrit, Howard University professor of law, secretary of the University, and future president of the University to legally challenge the separate but equal doctrine. They petitioned the school board to use Sousa Junior High School on an integrated basis, as it could adequately offer Anacostia pupils a full Junior High program without additional cost for repairs or construction and serve all of the children and not be overcrowded. On September 11, 1950, in a carefully planned maneuver, the head of the Consolidated Parents' Group, along with student Spottswood Bolling and 11 other black school children, presented themselves at the brand new Sousa School for admission "with a police escort and a battery of lawyers." The principal refused to admit the children and Bolling then began his school year at Shaw Junior High, a 48-year-old school, ill-equipped, with a playground too small for a ball field, a welding shop turned into a makeshift gymnasium, and science lab with a Bunson burner and a bowl of goldfish.
Nabrit brought suit on behalf of Bolling and four other plaintiffs against C. Melvin Sharpe, president of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia. True to Nabrit's strategy, the Bolling case charged simply that segregation in itself was discrimination. The NAACP public school segregation cases before the Supreme Court took the form of one case joining similar cases from Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, DC, and Kansas, naming it after the later case (Brown v. Board of Education) to show that the issue was not unique to the South. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court issued its decisions. In the Bolling decision, the court found racial segregation in the District's public schools a denial to black children of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
The John Philip Sousa Junior High School is located at 3650 Ely Place, in Southeast Washington, DC. It is still in use as a middle school.
Paul Robeson Home
Paul Robeson (1898-1976), actor, singer, civil rights advocate
The "Renaissance man" who lived in this apartment was renowned for his rich baritone voice, superb acting ability, and passionate zeal for racial and human justice. Robeson and his family lived in an apartment in this 13 story apartment building from 1939-1941, upon his return from living and performing in Europe.
Paul Robeson was a gifted student and athlete while attending Rutgers University in New Jersey. He was a brilliant Phi Beta Kappa student, two time All American football player (1917-1918), and won honors in debating and oratory. He graduated from Columbia Law School but gave up law to pursue a career in singing and acting. Robeson performed on Broadway, and is noted for his leading roles in Othello and Eugene O'Neill's play, Emperor Jones, and his stunning rendition of the song "Ole Man River" in the musical Showboat. In 1934, he visited the Soviet Union, where he felt fully accepted as a black artist. During World War II, he entertained troops at the front and sang battle songs on the radio. Despite his war efforts, he was labeled "subversive" by McCarthyites, who were wary of his earlier trip to the Soviet Union, his support of the 1947 St. Louis picketing against segregation of black actors and a Panama effort to organize the mostly-black Panamanian workers. Robeson began receiving death threats from the Ku Klux Klan while campaigning for the Progressive Party candidate in the 1948 presidential election. When he publicly opposed the Cold War, even the national secretary of the NAACP questioned his loyalty as an American. Connecticut state officials also went to court to prevent him from visiting his family home in Enfield. Undaunted, Robeson formally denounced the action and on August 27, 1949, traveled to Peekskill, New York, to sing before a group of African American and Jewish trade unionists. A KKK-led riot canceled the concert but Robeson returned the following week with 25,000 supporters. A "human wall" protected Robeson while he sang, though afterwards many of the concert goers were ambushed and beaten while local police and state troopers stood by.
In March 1950, NBC barred Robeson from appearing on a television show with Eleanor Roosevelt. Concert halls closed their doors to him, and his records began to disappear from stores. Finally, the U.S. State Department canceled his passport. Robeson sued and the case went to the Supreme Court. After eight years and an international outcry, he won.
In 1937, Robeson wrote, "the artist must elect to fight for freedom or for slavery. I have made my choice. I have no alternative." He continued this fight for freedom, both political and artistic, until his death in 1976.
The Paul Robeson Residence, a National Historic Landmark, is located at 555 Edgecombe Avenue in New York City. His apartment is not open to the public
A. Philip Randolph (1889-1979), labor leader, civil rights leader
Labor reformer and unionist Asa Philip Randolph, one of many influential African Americans who lived at the Dunbar Apartments, battled racism in American industry. He also is well-known for spearheading the 1963 March on Washington which ended at the Lincoln Memorial. The apartment complex, constructed in 1926, consists of ten u-shaped buildings centered around an interior garden courtyard which allowed air and light to reach each apartment. The Dunbar Apartments, the first large garden complex in Manhattan, contained a nursery school, playground, retail stores, and a branch of the Dunbar National Bank, Harlem's first bank to be managed and staffed by African Americans.
As a labor leader championing equality for Pullman's railroad porters, Randolph spoke before 500 Pullman porters who had met secretly in 1925 in order to avoid their employer's notorious unionization busting. Later that year, as a result of the meeting, Randolph helped organize the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. For 12 years, the union persevered despite merciless opposition from the Pullman Company and, in 1937, Randolph and the porters prevailed. Forced to the bargaining table, the Pullman Company signed the first-ever contract with a black union. As a result, Randolph stepped into the national arena. To end the exclusion of blacks from the defense industry, he threatened a march on Washington in 1941. President Franklin D. Roosevelt subsequently issued an executive order outlawing discrimination in the hiring of defense industry and government employees. The order also established the Committee on Fair Employment Practice. President Harry Truman signed an executive order seven years later, at the insistence of Randolph, which ended racial segregation in the military. By the 1950s, civil rights leaders recognized Randolph, the first African American vice-president of the American Federation of Labor, as an elder statesman, and in that role he organized the Washington, D.C., youth marches, Prayer Pilgrimage and 1963 march.
The Dunbar Apartments, where Randolph once lived, were financed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and were "the first large cooperative built for Blacks," according to the New York City Landmarks Commission, and "it was a prototype structure for both the public housing projects of the Depression years and for later middle-income housing." Other prominent African Americans who lived at the Dunbar Apartments included W.E.B. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, and Arctic explorer Matthew A. Henson.
The Dunbar Apartments are bounded by 7th and 8th Avenues and W. 149th and 150th Streets in Harlem, New York City, and are not open to the public.
William Monroe Trotter House
William Monroe Trotter (1872-1934), journalist, civil rights advocate
Harvard-educated newspaper editor William Monroe Trotter, who lived in this house for most of his career, spoke out against the racism of the early 20th century. He is well-remembered, too, for publicly and vehemently denouncing educator Booker T. Washington, who believed African Americans should find ways to "get along"with their white oppressors. In 1901, Trotter helped organize the "Boston Literary and Historical Association"--a forum for militant political thinkers like W.E.B.Du Bois and Oswald Garrison Villard. The same year, he launched a weekly newspaper on race relations, The Guardian, which was an overnight success. Early editions criticized Booker T. Washington on three counts--first, his "unreal" optimism that intolerable racial conditions were actually improving; second, his alliance with President Theodore Roosevelt; and third, his promotion of manual and industrial training for African Americans over traditional forms of education. In 1903, after he interrupted a speech Washington was delivering, Trotter was arrested and jailed for one month. The incident was branded the "Boston Riot." In 1909 Trotter and Du Bois founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), but Trotter objected to the new organization's white financing and leadership, preferring his own alternative "National Equal Rights League." Until his death at age 62, Trotter continued to speak out against racism. He advocated better treatment for World War I black soldiers, tried to get the film Birth of a Nation banned in Boston, protested Marcus Garvey's Back-to-Africa Movement, and petitioned Franklin D. Roosevelt to end segregation in the District of Columbia.
The William Monroe Trotter House, a National Historic Landmark, is located at 97 Sawyer Avenue in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston. It is not open to the public.
W.E.B. Du Bois Boyhood Homesite
W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963), historian, educator, civil rights advocate
We are returning from War!...For the America that represents and gloats in lynching, disenfranchisement, caste, brutality and devilish insult--for this, in the hateful upturning and mixing of things, we were forced by vindictive fate to fight. We return. We return from fighting. We return fighting. Make way for Democracy! We saved it in France, and by the Great Jehovah, we will save it in the United States of America, or know the reason why.
W.E.B. Du Bois, who lived in a now demolished house on this site during his boyhood, was a voice that inspired African Americans to believe in themselves and to fight for justice. Du Bois felt a special bond to the Great Barrington property, which had been in his family for more than 200 years. The property was given to Du Bois as a 60th birthday gift in 1928. He was a sage who motivated black activists to use "organization"--not "apology"--against white oppression.
Du Bois' 1903 book The Souls of Black Folk--especially the essay "The Talented Tenth"--established his reputation as a writer. He wrote more than 20 books and hundreds of essays and pamphlets, covering topics ranging from history, to education, to segregation, to poor housing, and to the subjugation of black women. In the NAACP's Crisis magazine, which he edited for nearly 25 years, he consistently spoke out against racism.
Du Bois excelled in other areas. In 1896, he became the first African American to earn a Ph.D from Harvard. His dissertation, "The Suppression of the African Slave Trade," became the first volume in the Harvard Historical Studies. He taught sociology at Atlanta University and the University of Pennsylvania. In 1905, he launched the Niagara Movement, asserting equal political rights, economic opportunity, education, justice, and an end to segregation. Four years later, he co-founded the NAACP, serving on its board of directors and coordinating publicity and research.
Late in his life, Du Bois joined the Communist Party and died in Ghana, where he received a state funeral. When leaders of the 1963 March on Washington learned "the Old Man" had just died, they knew who it was.
W.E.B. Du Bois Boyhood Homesite, a National Historic Landmark, is on the north side of Route 23, approximately two miles west of Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Only the ruins of the original house are visible.
Elizabeth Harden Gilmore House
Elizabeth Harden Gilmore (1909-1986), business leader, civil rights advocate
Civil rights leader Elizabeth Harden Gilmore lived and worked in this house from 1947 until her death in 1986. She pioneered efforts to integrate her state's schools, housing, and public accommodations and to pass civil rights legislation enforcing such integration. Her home, constructed by 1900, is a handsome, two-and-a-half story, brick Classical Revival style residence, with a columned portico. In the early 1950s before the Brown v. Board of Education decision mandating school desegregation, Gilmore formed a women's club which opened Charleston's first integrated day care center. At about the same time, she succeeded in getting her black Girl Scout troop admitted to Camp Anne Bailey near the mountain town of Lewisburg. After co-founding the local chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in 1958, she led CORE in a successful 1 ½-year-long sit-in campaign at a local department store called The Diamond. In the 1960s Gilmore served on the Kanawha Valley Council of Human Relations, where she participated in forums on racial differences and where she helped black renters, displaced by a new interstate highway, find housing. Her successful push to amend the 1961 state civil rights law won her a seat on the powerful higher-education Board of Regents. Gilmore was the first African American to receive such an honor. She stayed on the Board from 1969 to the late 1970s serving one term as vice-president and one term as president. Gilmore's tireless commitment to civil and human rights didn't end there. She was also involved with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and community education and welfare committees. "She was always there," says her friend Betty Hamilton. "Her commitment was ongoing and steadfast."
Scott Funeral Home--formerly the Harden and Harden Funeral House--is located at 514 Broad Street in Charleston, West Virginia. Hours vary; visitors are welcome.
Lincoln Hall, Berea College
Berea College's Lincoln Hall--or what used to be called "Recitation Hall"--was the focus of civil rights activities for nearly three-quarters of a century. In 1855, Berea was founded specifically to educate black and white students together. Black students made up one third to one half of the school's student body. Lincoln Hall, a three-story brick building constructed in 1887, contained classrooms, a library, offices, laboratories, a museum and meeting rooms. It is one of the oldest buildings on the Berea campus.
Integration at Berea came to a halt in 1904, when the Kentucky state legislature passed the "Day Law," mandating segregation. For four years, Berea College and its supporters fought the law in the courts, presenting a wealth of documentation on how integrated classrooms had benefitted students. They lost. In Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Supreme Court ruled that since Berea was a private college incorporated by the state of Kentucky, the state had a right to regulate it according to its own laws.
In 1950, the Day Law was amended by the state legislature, allowing Berea to admit black students who could not find comparable courses at the Kentucky State College for Negroes. This restriction was removed by the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which upheld the right of a black girl in Topeka, Kansas to attend an all-white school and which also overturned Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, Berea's black students tested the college's commitment to integration. For example, they demanded that African Americans be included on the faculty and in the administration, and they staged a 20-hour sit-in at the president's Lincoln Hall office to ensure that three black students who had been arrested received fair treatment.
Lincoln Hall, a National Historic Landmark, is located on Chestnut Street on the Berea College campus in Berea, Kentucky. Campus tours are available daily starting from the Boone Tavern Hotel Tourist Center. For more information and to arrange group tours, call the Public Affairs Office at 606-986-9341, ext. 5018.
Boone Tavern Hall of Berea College, near Lincoln Hall at Berea College, is a Historic Hotels of America member, a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Whitney M. Young, Jr. Birthplace
Whitney M. Young, Jr. (1921-1971), educator, civil rights leader
Whitney M. Young, Jr., lived in this simple two-story wooden house on the campus of the Lincoln Institute of Kentucky, where his father taught, until he was 15. He spent most of his career working to end employment discrimination in the South and turning the National Urban League from a relatively passive civil rights organization into one that aggressively fought for justice.
During World War II, Young was assigned to a road construction crew of black soldiers supervised by Southern white officers. After just three weeks, he was promoted from private to first sergeant, creating hostility on both sides. The situation propelled him into a career in race relations. A few years later, Young became president of the Urban League's Omaha, Nebraska, branch and helped get black workers into jobs previously reserved for whites. In the process, he more than tripled the organization's paid membership.
In his next position as dean of social work at Atlanta University, Young supported alumni in their boycott of the Georgia Conference of Social Welfare, which had a poor record of placing African Americans in good jobs. At the same time, he joined the NAACP and rose to become state president. At age 40, Young became president of the National Urban League, and within four years had expanded the organization from 38 employees to 1600 employees and from an annual budget of $325,000 to one of $6,100,000. During his ten-year tenure at the League, he initiated programs like "Street Academy," an alternative education system to prepare high school dropouts for college, and "New Thrust," an effort to help local black leaders identify and solve community problems. Young also pushed for federal aid to cities. In 1968, President Johnson honored Young with the highest civilian award--the Medal of Freedom.
The Whitney M. Young, Jr., Birthplace, a National Historic Landmark, is located southwest of Simpsonville, Kentucky, off U.S. Route 60 on the campus of the Old Lincoln Institute, now the Whitney M. Young, Jr., Job Corps Center. The house is open to the public by request. Call the Whitney M. Young, Jr., Foundation at 502-585-4733 for an appointment.
Oscar Stanton De Priest House
Oscar Stanton De Priest (1871-1951), lawmaker, civil rights advocate
This eight-flat apartment building, constructed in 1920, is associated with Oscar Stanton De Priest, the first African American elected to Congress in the 20th century. De Priest bought the building in 1929 and lived in one of its apartments until his death in 1951.
During his three terms (1928-1935), as the only black representative in Congress, De Priest introduced several anti-discrimination bills. His 1933 amendment barring discrimination in the Civilian Conservation Corps was passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Roosevelt. A second anti-lynching bill failed, even though it did not make lynching a federal crime. A third proposal--a bill to permit a transfer of jurisdiction if a defendant believed he or she could not get a fair trial because of race or religion--would be passed by another Congress in another era.
Civil rights activists criticized De Priest for opposing federal aid to the needy, but they applauded him for speaking in the South despite death threats. They also praised De Priest for telling an Alabama senator he was not big enough to prevent him from dining in the Senate restaurant and for defending the right of Howard University students to eat in the House restaurant. De Priest took the House restaurant issue to a special bipartisan House committee. In a three month-long heated debate, the Republican minority argued that the restaurant's discriminatory practice violated 14th Amendment rights to equal access. The Democratic majority skirted the issue by claiming that the restaurant was not open to the public, and the House restaurant remained segregated.
The Oscar Stanton De Priest House in Chicago is a National Historic Landmark and is located at 4536-4538 South Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive. It is not open to the public.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett House
Ida B. Wells-Barnett (1862-1931), journalist, civil rights advocate, suffragist
Ida Bell Wells-Barnett lived in Chicago in this late-19th-century Romanesque Revival style stone residence while fighting to end lynching, segregation and the economic oppression of African Americans. She and her husband bought the building in 1919 and lived there until 1929.
In 1884, when 22 and a teacher in Tennessee, Wells-Barnett ignored a train conductor's order directing her to sit in a segregated car. Forcibly removed, Wells-Barnett filed a successful lawsuit against the railroad company. The Tennessee Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower court's decision in 1887. Racism also contributed to the poor conditions of Memphis' black schools, which Wells-Barnett openly criticized. School board disapproval resulted in her termination in 1891, after which she turned to journalism full-time.
As editor and co-owner of the Memphis Free Speech and Headlight, Wells-Barnett championed African American rights, especially after whites lynched three black Memphis grocers in 1892. Whites used lynching "to get rid of Negroes who were acquiring wealth and property," Wells-Barnett concluded, "and thus keep the race terrorized . . . ." By documenting lynchings across the country, she raised awareness and challenged alleged white "superiority." White Tennesseans angered by her indictments, destroyed the Free Speech offices. Undaunted, Wells-Barnett carried her crusade north and published Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases.
Despite Wells-Barnett's efforts, Congress never passed anti-lynching legislation. Still, her advocacy made a larger black women's movement possible. She and Mary Church Terrell were the only two black women who signed a petition leading to the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. After settling in Chicago, Wells-Barnett founded the Negro Fellowship League for black men, the first kindergarten for black children, and, in 1913, the first suffrage club for black women. Wells-Barnett successfully integrated the U.S. suffrage movement when she refused to walk with the other black women at the rear of a 1913 Washington parade and instead infiltrated the ranks of her white Illinois "peers" after the march began. Two years later, Wells-Barnett helped elect Oscar Stanton De Priest, Chicago's first African American alderman. Her "crusade for justice" continued until her death in 1931.
The Ida B. Wells-Barnett House, a National Historic Landmark, is located at 3624 S. Martin Luther King Drive in Chicago, Illinois. The House is a private residence and not open to the public.
This modest, two-story masonry residence built in St. Louis, Missouri in 1906 is associated with an African American family's struggle for justice that had a profound effect on American society. Because the J. D. Shelley family decided to fight for the right to live in the home of their choosing, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of restrictive racial covenants in housing in the landmark 1948 case of Shelley v. Kraemer.
In 1930, J. D. Shelley, his wife, and their six children migrated to St. Louis from Mississippi to escape the pervasive racial oppression of the South. For a number of years they lived with relatives and then in rental properties. In looking to buy a home, they found that many buildings in St. Louis were covered by racially restrictive covenants by which the building owners agreed not to sell to anyone other than a Caucasian. The Shelleys directly challenged this discriminatory practice by purchasing such a building at 4600 Labadie Avenue from an owner who agreed not to enforce the racial covenant. Louis D. Kraemer, owner of another property on Labadie covered by restrictive covenants, sued in the St. Louis Circuit (State) Court to enforce the restrictive covenant and prevent the Shelleys from acquiring title to the building. The trial court ruled in the Shelleys' favor in November of 1945, but when Kraemer appealed, the Missouri Supreme Court, on December 9, 1946, reversed the trial court's decision and ordered that the racial covenant be enforced. The Shelleys then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
On May 3, 1948, the United States Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Shelley v. Kraemer, holding, by a vote of 6 to 0 (with three judges not sitting), that racially restrictive covenants cannot be enforced by courts since this would constitute state action denying due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Although the case did not outlaw covenants (only a state's enforcement of the practice), in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court reinforced strongly the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws, which includes rights to acquire, enjoy, own, and dispose of property. The Shelley case was a heartening signal for African Americans that positive social change could be achieved through law and the courts.
The Shelley House, a National Historic Landmark, is located at 4600 Labadie Avenue in St. Louis, Missouri. The house is a private residence and is not open to the public.
Malcolm X Home Site
Malcolm X (1925-1965), civil rights activist
On May 19, 1925, Malcolm X (born Malcolm Little) was born in a now-demolished house on this site. As a civil rights leader he advocated racial separatism over integration and the legitimacy of violence in self-defense. He also championed the beauty and worth of blackness and black Americans' African past.
In 1952, Malcolm X joined the Harlem-based Nation of Islam--the Black Muslims--and became the protégé of its leader, Elijah Muhammad. Thanks largely to Malcolm X's skill as a militant and mesmerizing speaker, the Nation of Islam grew from 400 to at least 10,000 registered members. Like other Black Muslims, Malcolm X believed that whites were "the enemy." Integration was degrading and nonviolence ineffective, he said, and the "March on Washington" was the "Farce on Washington." African Americans should form a black state, he argued.
Growing impatience with Black Muslim passivity and a painful break with Elijah Muhammad in March 1964 caused Malcolm X to modify his hard-line stance. On a pilgrimage to Mecca, he observed a variety of skin colors, and a following extended trip to Africa and the Middle East broadened his experience and challenged him further. Hatred--not whites--was the enemy, he concluded, and nonviolent approaches to overcoming racism might work.
On February 14, 1965, unidentified attackers firebombed Malcolm X's New York house while he and his family were asleep inside. One week later, on February 21, Malcolm X was assassinated by Black Muslim extremists at a rally in New York City's Audubon Ballroom. The Autobiography of Malcolm X was published later that year.
The Malcolm X House Site is located at 3448 Pinkney Street in Omaha, Nebraska. The home was torn down prior to 1970.
Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site
Monroe Elementary School (now Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site) and Sumner Elementary School (a National Historic Landmark) are two of the schools in Topeka , Kansas and elsewhere in the country that played a significant role in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education. On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The decision dismantled the legal framework for racial segregation in public schools and Jim Crow laws which limited the rights of African Americans, particularly in the South. The decision forced the desegregation of public schools in 21 states.
Elementary schools in Kansas had been segregated since 1879 by a state law allowing cities with populations of 15,000 or more to establish separate schools for African American children and White children. African American parents in Kansas began filing court challenges as early as 1881. By 1950, 11 court challenges to segregated schools had reached the Kansas State Supreme Court. None of the cases successfully overturned the state law. In 1950 the Topeka NAACP organized another case, this time a class action comprised of 13 families. The basis for the plaintiff complaint was that their children were forced to ride school buses or city buses to reach segregated schools often many blocks from home. The Topeka NAACP filed suit on their behalf in February of 1951, but by August a federal three-judge panel ruled that although segregation might be detrimental, it was not illegal, since Topeka schools had equal facilities and programs. Their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was joined by similar cases from Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington, D.C. The court ruling combined these five cases under the heading Oliver L. Brown et. al. vs. the Board of Education of Topeka , (KS) et. al. Mr. Brown was the assigned lead plaintiff in the Kansas class action and became namesake of the court decision. Special counsel Thurgood Marshall argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that segregation was unconstitutional because it stigmatized African Americans, thereby denying them the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren and a unanimous court agreed.
Brown intensified resistance by white supremacist groups and government officials sympathetic to the segregationist cause, but it encouraged and empowered African Americans, who for the first time in more than half a century felt they had a "friend" in the Supreme Court.
The Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Site is located at 1515 SE Monroe in Topeka, KS. Guided tours of the school are available 9:00am to 5:00pm daily, closed major holidays. For more information, call 785-354-4273, or click here.
Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Site is the subject of an online-lesson plan produced by Teaching with Historic Places, a National Register program that offers classroom-ready lesson plans on properties listed in the National Register. To learn more, visit the Teaching with Historic Places home page.
Moulin Rouge Hotel
Promoters of the Moulin Rouge Hotel called it "the nation's first major interracial hotel." Until the hotel's opening on May 24, 1955, black entertainers performing in Las Vegas were denied access to casino and hotel dining areas and were forced to seek overnight accommodations in black boarding houses. Black tourism was non-existent. Nevada Assembly bills designed to bar discrimination in public places had failed, the last by only one vote. So a diverse group of investors took a different tactic. They developed plans for an integrated hotel in a prime location--a site between the predominately white area of the Strip and the largely black west side. The result was a hotel integrated at all levels, from employees to patrons to entertainers.
The Moulin Rouge consists of two stuccoed buildings which housed a hotel, casino, and a theater. Many original features survive, including its large neon sign, styled in cursive writing reading "Moulin Rouge," and colorful murals depicting dancers and fancy cars.
Opening night was a gala affair hosted by Joe Louis and featuring performances by The Platters and flashy chorus-line routines. Within the next few months the hotel attracted such performers as Louis Armstrong, George Burns, Nat King Cole, Jack Benny, Frank Sinatra, and Sammy Davis, Jr. Initially, the night spot became so popular, a 2:30 a.m. "third show" was added.
Although the Moulin Rouge closed in October 1955, its short life had a lasting impact. When civil rights activists scheduled a march on March 26, 1960, to protest racial discrimination in Las Vegas resorts, hotel owners, city and state officials, and Nevada Governor Grant Sawyer hurriedly set up a meeting with NAACP president, Dr. James McMillan and other black leaders at the Moulin Rouge. Most of the hotel owners agreed to integrate their establishments, and the planned march was canceled.
The Moulin Rouge Hotel in Las Vegas is located at 900 West Bonanza Road. It is being renovated and not open to the public. Recently, the property was a setting for the filming of the movie "Casino."
Bethel AME Church
The Bethel AME Church in Reno, Nevada, was a religious, social and political center of the African American community, initially for black settlers in the 1910s, and later for local civil rights activists during the 1960s. From its inception, Bethel AME has held to the principles of the AME church to provide self-expression and fuller involvement in society as a means through which members could gain a sense of dignity and self-respect. Bethel AME Church has fostered social equality through its active role in the community, through its direct link with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and through its abiding dignity in the face of conspicuous and unrelenting discrimination
During the early 1940s, Bethel AME's minister, Rev. Emmer Henry Booker, corresponded with Nevada Governor E.P. Carville to promote racial equality. In early 1941, Booker sought new quarters for the Bethel congregation, which wanted to expand its facilities to include a kitchen and social hall. The church proposed to purchase an existing building in the predominantly white area of northwest Reno, near the University of Reno and Reno High School. Protests were made by the University, the school board, and Gamma Phi Beta Sorority at a Reno city council meeting against the black congregation moving to that section of the city. Due to the protests, the congregation decided not to move to another building, but to enlarge and renovate the existing church. The clapboard church was sheathed in brick, the vestibule enlarged, and a full basement constructed for offices, kitchen, a choir room, library and study, and parlor. The events that prompted the renovation of the building reflect the struggle for civil rights in the city of Reno.
Until the 1960s, Reno practiced non-legislated segregation; African Americans were restricted in housing and employment opportunities, were not served in white restaurants and bars, could not enter white casinos, or stay in white hotels. Many members of Reno's NAACP chapter, founded in 1919, were also congregants of Bethel AME, and the church acted as the official meeting location of the chapter. Drawing attention to the discriminatory practices of Reno's businesses and government, the NAACP branch led activities such as picketing the local Woolworth store in 1960. Today, Bethel AME Church is one of the most significant buildings in the State of Nevada associated with its African American population and the civil rights movement.
The Bethel AME Church is located at 220 Bell St., Reno, Nevada. The congregation sought a larger facility in 1993, after which a private owner purchased Bethel AME Church and converted it into a homeless shelter. It is not open to the public.
Calvary Baptist Church
This church was the physical and spiritual base for a multi-year sit-in campaign that changed the face of segregation in Oklahoma City. Constructed in 1921 by black architect and church member Russell Benton Bingham, Calvary Baptist Church is an imposing three-story brick building with twin towers capped by brick parapets. In the early 20th century it served as the religious and social center of Oklahoma City's black community. The sit-ins--or what were then called "sitdowns"--were conceived in 1957 when 26 high school drama students visited St. Louis, where they ate at integrated lunch counters. Back home and determined to change "Jim Crow" Oklahoma, they met at Calvary with their drama teacher and a NAACP advisor to plan a sit-in campaign. On August 19, 1958, 12 youths marched to nearby Katz Drug Store and took unoccupied seats at the lunch counter. When they were not served, they remained, quiet and orderly. After another sit-in the next day, Katzs' manager agreed to serve them. At the second stop, S.H. Kress and Company, the youths were not so lucky. The store yielded but all stools at its lunch counter were removed. The sit-ins were repeated almost on a daily basis, at food service spots all over the city. Once, the students and other local African Americans showed up for the "Everyone Welcome" grand opening of a new cafeteria on Lincoln Boulevard. They were turned away. In time, white protestors joined the demonstrators. By mid-1961, more than 175 city restaurants had opened their doors to African Americans, and before long, segregated eating places had virtually disappeared in Oklahoma City. Calvary was the "start" and the "finish" for most of the sit-ins, despite threats to cancel the church's insurance and to bomb the building. In 1995, Calvary Baptist Church was slightly damaged by the terrorist bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.
Calvary Baptist Church is located in Oklahoma City at 300 N. Walnut. For further information call 405-523-0754.
Bizzell Library at the University of Oklahoma
A National Historic Landmark, the University of Oklahoma's Bizzell Library figured prominently in the historic movement to racially desegregate public higher education in the South in the mid-20th century, as well as the Federal government's position on eliminating racial segregation within a democratic society. The University was the focus of McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal conditions were unattainable in graduate and professional education.
On January 28, 1948, a black retired professor, George McLaurin, applied to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctorate in Education. School authorities were required to deny him admission solely because of his race under Oklahoma statutes which made it a misdemeanor to maintain or operate, teach, or attend a school at which both whites and African Americans were enrolled or taught. McLaurin filed a complaint to gain admission. On October 6, the Court for the Western District of Oklahoma found unconstitutional those parts of the Oklahoma statute that denied McLaurin admission, and held that the State had a constitutional duty to provide McLaurin with the education he sought as soon as it provided that education for applicants of any other group. With this ruling the University's Board of Regents voted to admit McLaurin, but on a segregated basis.
On October 13, 1948, McLaurin entered the University. He sat at a designated desk on the mezzanine level of Bizzell Library rather than the regular reading room, at a desk in an anteroom adjoining Classroom 104 in Carnegie Hall, and ate at a separate time from the white students in the cafeteria. McLaurin once again filed suit with the District Court. Heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1950,McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regentschallenged the constitutionality of the separate but equal doctrine under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that as a result of McLaurin's segregation he was "handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. Such restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussion and exchange view with other students, and in general to learn his professions." The case became the climax of the NAACP's plans between 1930 and 1950 to overturn the separate but equal doctrine in public education by demanding equality in graduate and professional schools.
The Bizzell Library is located at 401 W. Brooks St. on the campus of the University of Oklahoma, in Norman, Oklahoma. It is still an educational facility and open for research. Call 405-325-2640 for further information.
Juanita Craft House
Juanita J. Craft (1902-1985), civil rights organizer, public servant
Juanita Craft lived in this modest, one-story wood frame house for 50 years, and both Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr., visited her there to discuss the future of the civil rights movement. Craft played a crucial role in integrating two universities, the 1954 Texas State Fair, and Dallas theaters, restaurants, and lunch counters. As a tribute to her anti-discrimination efforts, Dallas named a city park and recreation center after her. In 1918 Craft's mother died of tuberculosis when a San Angelo, Texas, sanitarium refused treatment because of her race. Seven years later, Craft moved to Dallas, where she worked as a hotel maid and later, a dressmaker. In 1935 Craft joined the NAACP, and in the years that followed, she started 182 rural NAACP chapters. In her frequent train trips around the state, she consistently sat in "whites only" sections, refusing to move. Craft joined demonstrations against the segregated University of Texas Law School and North Texas State University, each resulting in successful lawsuits in 1950 and 1955. Afterwards, she opened a dropout preparation program in Dallas. Craft also served as a delegate to the White House Conference on Children and Youth, and as a member of the Governor's Human Relations Committee. In 1975, at the age of 73, she was elected to the Dallas City Council, where she spent the next two years working to improve the status of Hispanic and Native Americans.
The Juanita J. Craft Civil Rights House is located at 2618 Warren Avenue in Dallas' Wheatley Place Historic District. The house is open to the public Wednesday and Thursday, 1:00pm to 4:00pm.
Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site
Little Rock High School, now Central High School National Historic Site, is a national emblem of the often violent struggle over school desegregation. Parting the Waters author Taylor Branch calls the Little Rock crisis "the most severe test of the Constitution since the Civil War."
Three years after the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, which officially ended public-school segregation, a federal court ordered Little Rock to comply. On September 4, 1957, Governor Orval Faubus defied the court, calling in the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine African American students--"The Little Rock Nine"--from entering the building. Ten days later in a meeting with President Eisenhower, Faubus agreed to use the National Guard to protect the African American teenagers, but on returning to Little Rock, he dismissed the troops, leaving the African American students exposed to an angry white mob. Within hours, the jeering, brick-throwing mob had beaten several reporters and smashed many of the school's windows and doors. By noon, local police were forced to evacuate the nine students.
When Faubus did not restore order, President Eisenhower dispatched 101st Airborne Division paratroopers to Little Rock and put the Arkansas National Guard under federal command. By 3 a.m., soldiers surrounded the school, bayonets fixed.
Under federal protection, the "Little Rock Nine" finished out the school year. The following year, Faubus closed all the high schools, forcing the African American students to take correspondence courses or go to out-of-state schools. The school board reopened the schools in the fall of 1959, and despite more violence--for example, the bombing of one student's house--four of the nine students returned, this time protected by local police.
Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site was designated a unit of the National Park Service on November 6, 1998. It is located at the intersection of 14th and Park Streets in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site is the subject of an online-lesson plan produced by Teaching with Historic Places, a National Register program that offers classroom-ready lesson plans on properties listed in the National Register. To learn more, visit the Teaching with Historic Places home page.
Daisy Bates House
Daisy Bates (1914-1999),
civil rights advocate
The Daisy Bates House, a National Historic Landmark, was the de facto command post for the Central High School desegregation crisis in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was the first time a President used federal powers to uphold and implement a federal court decision regarding school desegregation. Mrs. Daisy Lee Gaston Bates, who, with her husband Lucius Christopher (L.C.) Bates, resided at this address during the Central High School desegregation crisis in 1957-1958. The house served as a haven for the nine African-American students who desegregated the school and a place to plan the best way to achieve their goals.
As the president of the Arkansas state conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) branches, Daisy Bates symbolized the legal fight to desegregate the public schools after the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that found segregated schools unconstitutional. Mrs. Bates combined her public roles as the state NAACP president and co-publisher (with her husband) of the Arkansas State Press to become a mentor to the nine teenagers (now known as the Little Rock Nine) who ultimately desegregated Central High School. During the desegregation crisis, the Bates' home became the official pick-up and drop-off site for the Little Rock Nine's trips to and from Central High School each school day, and consequently, a gathering spot for the Nine and members of the press. As such, the house became a frequent target of violence and damage at the hands of segregation's supporters. The perseverance of Mrs. Bates and the Little Rock Nine during these turbulent years sent a strong message throughout the South that desegregation worked and the tradition of racial segregation under "Jim Crow" would no longer be tolerated in the United States of America.
The Daisy Bates House is located at 1207 West 28th St., in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is private property and is not open to the public.
Mason Temple Church of God in Christ
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead.
But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop.
And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place.
But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will.
And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain.
And I've looked over.
And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you.
But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his prophetic "Mountaintop" speech in this church in Memphis, Tennessee, on the eve of his assassination--April 3, 1968.
Mason Temple served as a focal point of civil rights activities in Memphis during the 1950s and 1960s. Mason Temple was built between 1940 and 1945 as the administrative and spiritual center of the Church of God in Christ, the second largest black denomination. The temple is the centerpiece of a group of six buildings that form the church's world headquarters. Mason Temple is a vast concrete building capable of seating 7,500 people on two levels. The temple, designed with simplified Art Moderne styling and detail, was constructed for regular services as well as to house the annual national convention of church representatives.
On the evening of April 3, 1968, Mason Temple had scheduled the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's (SCLC) Rev. Ralph Abernathy, King's associate, as the evening speaker, but when the 3,000 person crowd demanded to hear King, Abernathy phoned King at his room in the Lorraine Hotel and asked him to address the assembly.
King, Abernathy, Andrew Young and other black leaders had come to Memphis to support 1,300 striking sanitation workers who met regularly at the church. Their grievances included unfair working conditions (on rainy days, black workers had to return home without pay while paid white supervisors remained on the job, and black workers were given only one uniform and no place in which to change clothes), and poor pay (the highest-paid black worker could not hope to earn more than $70 a week). Following a bloody confrontation between marching strikers and police the week before, a court injunction had been issued banning further protests. King hoped their planned march would overturn the court injunction.
Mason Temple is located at 938 Mason Street in Memphis, Tennessee. For more information call 901-578-3800
On April 4, 1968, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated here at the Lorraine Hotel, just a day after speaking at the Mason Temple Church of God in Christ. Built in 1925, the Lorraine Hotel was a typical Southern hotel accessible only to whites in its early history. However, by the end of World War II, the Lorraine had become a black establishment which had among its early guests Cab Colloway, Count Basie, and other prominent jazz musicians, in addition to later celebrities such as Roy Campanella, Nat King Cole, and Aretha Franklin. Partly because of its historical importance to the black community of Memphis, Martin Luther King chose to stay at the Lorraine during the 1968 Memphis sanitation workers strike.
King, Abernathy, Andrew Young and other black leaders had come to Memphis to support 1,300 striking sanitation workers. Their grievances included unfair working conditions (on rainy days, black workers had to return home without pay while paid white supervisors remained on the job, and black workers were given only one uniform and no place in which to change clothes), and poor pay (the highest-paid black worker could not hope to earn more than $70 a week). Following a bloody confrontation between marching strikers and police, a court injunction had been issued banning further protests. King hoped their planned march would overturn the court injunction, but such plans were cut short on April 4, 1968 when an assassin shot and killed King on the balcony of King's room in the motel addition of the hotel. In 1991, the Lorraine Hotel was converted into the National Civil Rights Museum.
The Lorraine Hotel (National Civil Rights Museum) is located at 450 Mulberry in Memphis, TN in the South Main Historic District. The Museum is open June-August from 9:00am to 6:00pm Monday-Saturday, and 1:00pm to 6:00pm on Sundays; during the rest of the year the musuem closes one hour earlier at 5:00pm. There is a price for admission. For more information, call 901-521-9699, or click here.
During the 1950s and 1960s, this historically black college became a primary center of activity of the civil rights movement in Mississippi. Students at Tougaloo, whose campus is located ten miles north of Jackson, led a multi-year effort to end racial discrimination in the state's capital city. The nine historic buildings on the campus date from the mid-19th through the early 20th centuries.
Tougaloo College was founded in 1869 by the American Missionary Association to provide teacher education and industrial training for African Americans in Mississippi. From its start Tougaloo College served all races; a white student was among its first graduating class. Tougaloo students and white students at the nearby Millsaps College, a white Methodist school, formed academic and social bonds, setting, for the time, a rare example of racial cooperation.
In 1960 Tougaloo installed a president who would lead the college through the turbulent years of the civil rights movement. Dr. Adam Beittel began a successful exchange program with several northern schools, including Brown University, which brought white students to Tougaloo. Because Tougaloo College was a private institution administered by a board in New York, it was free from State control. Students at Tougaloo began protesting racial discrimination in Jackson, and led a boycott of restaurants in the city which refused to serve blacks. Many students were arrested for protesting at the businesses and for trying to attend segregated white churches and concerts. President Beittel frequently bailed the students out of jail. The students also led a successful campaign to encourage white entertainers not to participate in segregated performances in Jackson. In the 1960s Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee members Bob Moses and James Lawson held voter registration and nonviolence workshops on campus.
Resistance to the civil rights activities of the students brought violence to the Tougaloo campus, as faculty housing on the edge of the school often became the target of drive-by shootings. In 1964 the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission (created by the legislature to defend the state from the encroachment of federal authority) successfully prevailed on Tougaloo's Board of Trustees in New York to dismiss Dr. Beittel as college president by threatening trouble between the college and the State if Beittel remained. The Board removed Dr. Beittel, but by this time the student movement on campus was waning.
Tougaloo College has continually sought to enhance the education of its students, as well as to promote harmonious racial relations between whites and blacks. As the center of the civil rights movement in Mississippi, Tougaloo College played a vital role in advancing the black community in the State.
Tougaloo College is located in the unincorporated area historically referred to as Tougaloo, Mississippi, ten miles north of downtown Jackson, just across the county line in Madison County, but within the city limits of Jackson.
Histories of the Civil Rights Movement
Branch, Taylor, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954 - 1963, Simon & Schuster, 1988.
______________, Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years, 1963 - 1965, Simon & Schuster, 1998.
Davis, Townsend, Weary Feet, Rested Souls: A Guided History of the Civil Rights Movement,W. W. & Norton Company, 1998.
Eskew, Glenn T., But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle, University of North Carolina Press, 1997.
Friedland, Michael B., Lift Up Your Voice Like a Trumpet: White Clergy and the Civil Rights and Antiwar Movements, 1954 - 1973, University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
Halberstam, David, The Children, Random House, 1998.
Higham, John, Civil Rights and Social Wrongs: Black-White Relations Since World War II, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
Litwack, Leon F., Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow, Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
McKnight, Gerald D., The Last Crusade: Martin Luther King, Jr., the F.B.I., and the People's Campaign, Westview Press, 1998.
Weisbrot, Robert, Freedom Bound: A History of America's Civil Rights Movement, Plume, 1990.
Williams, Juan, Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954 - 65, Viking Press, 1987.
Memoirs, Autobiographies, and Biographies
Beals, Melba Pattillo, Warriors Don't Cry: A Searing Memoir of the Battle to Integrate Little Rock's Central High, Washington Square Press, 1964.
King, Martin Luther, Jr., and James Washington (ed.), A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper & Row, 1986.
Lewis, John with Michael D'Orso, Walking With the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement, Simon & Schuster, 1998.
Raines, Howell, My Soul is Rested: Movement Days in the Deep South, G.P. Putnam's & Sons, 1977.
Rowan, Carl, South of Freedom, Louisiana State University Press, 1997.
Sikora, Frank, The Judge: The Life and Opinions of Alabama's Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Black Belt Press, 1992.
Web, Sheyann, et al, Selma, Lord, Selma: Girlhood Memories of the Civil Rights Days, University of Alabama Press, 1997.
Carson, Clayborne, In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s, Harvard University Press, 1995.
Finch, Minnie, The NAACP: Its Fight for Justice, Scarecrow Press, 1981.
Greenberg, Cheryl Lynn, A Circle of Trust: Remembering SNCC, Rutgers University Press, 1998.
Harris, Jacqueline L., History and Achievements of the NAACP (The African American Experience), F. Watts, 1992.
Meier, August, and Elliot Rudwick, CORE: A Study in the Civil Rights Movement, 1942-1968, Univeristy of Illinois Press, 1975.
Moore, Jesse Thomas, A Search for Equality : The National Urban League, 1910-1961, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1981.
St. James, Warren D., NAACP: Triumphs of a Pressure Group, Nineteen Hundred and Nine Thru Nineteen Hundred and Eighty, Exposition Press, 1980.
Books for Young Readers
Coleman, Evelyn, Tyrone Geter (Illustrator) White Socks Only, Albert Whitman & Co., March 1996.
King, Martin Luther, and Coretta Scott King, I Have a Dream, Scholastic Trade, 1997.
King, Casey, Linda Barret Osborne, and Joe Brooks (Illustrator), Oh, Freedom! : Kids Talk About the Civil Rights Movement With the People Who Made It Happen, Knopf, 1997.
Parks, Rosa, and Gregory J. Reed, Dear Mrs. Parks: A Dialogue With Today's Youth, Lee & Low Books, 1996.
Winslow, Vicki, and Colin Bootman (Illustrator), Follow the Leader, Bantam Books, 1997.
Horton, James Oliver and Lois E. (eds.), A History of the African American People: The History, Traditions, & Culture of African Americans, Smithmark, 1995.
Hine, Darlene Clark (ed.), Black Women in America: An Historical Encyclopedia, Volumes 1 and 2, Carlson Publishing, Inc., 1993.
Logan, Rayford W. and Michael R. Winston (eds.), Dictionary of American Negro Biography, W.W. Norton, 1982.
Savage, Beth L. (ed.), African American Historic Places, The Preservation Press, 1994.
Salem, Dorothy C. (ed.), African American Women: A Biographical Dictionary, Garland, 1993.
Civil Rights Movement Resources on the Web
Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site
Explore the birth home and neighborhood of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the civil rights movement's most important leaders, as administered and interpreted by the National Park Service.
Discover the varied political and social history of Lincoln Memorial, as administered and interpreted by the National Park Service.
Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site
Visit the site that initiated one of the Supreme Court's most important decisions, ending segregation in public schools, as administered and interpreted by the National Park Service.
Our Shared History: Celebrating African American History and Culture
A "Links to the Past" feature highlighting and connecting the National Park Service's various African American resources.
National Scenic Byways Online
Sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), this site promotes the FHWA-designated All-American Roads and National Scenic Byways, as well as many state and federally-designated byways, including the Selma-To-Montgomery National Historic Trail and All-American Road featured in this itinerary.
National Park Service Trails System
Learn more about trails, both scenic and historic, located throughout the United States.
The Ollie Atkins Photograph Collection
View online some of the incredible photographs (many of which are used in this itinerary) taken by Olliver F. Atkins, a photographer for The Saturday Evening Post, Washington Post, and President Richard Nixon's personal photographer.
Lesson Plan: The Liberty Bell: From Obscurity to Icon
The Liberty Bell, a symbol of freedom for the Civil Rights movement, is the subject of an online-lesson plan produced by Teaching with Historic Places, a National Register program that offers classroom-ready lesson plans on properties listed in the Register.
Travel Web Sites for States Featured in "We Shall Overcome"
Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel
Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism
Florida Commission on Tourism
Georgia: Industry, Travel, and Tourism
The Illinois Bureau of Tourism
Kentucky Department of Travel
Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism
Missouri Division of Tourism
Mississippi Division of Tourism Development
Nebraska Tourism Office
Nevada Commission on Tourism
New York Travel and Tourism
North Carolina Division of Tourism
Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism
Tennessee Department of Tourist Development
Texas Department of Economic Development
Virginia Tourism Development
Washington, DC Office of Tourism and Promotions
West Virginia Division of Tourism
Historic Hotels of America
A feature of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Heritage Traveler program that provides information on historic hotels in the vicinity of this itinerary.
Preservation Resources for States Featured in "We Shall Overcome"
New York SHPO
North Carolina SHPO
South Carolina SHPO
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Learn about the programs of and membership in the oldest national non-profit preservation organization.
Historic Hotels of America
A feature of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Heritage Traveler program that provides information on historic hotels and package tours in the vicinity of this itinerary.
National Park Service Office of Tourism
National parks have been interwoven with tourism from their earliest days. This website highlights the ways in which the NPS promotes and supports sustainable, responsible, informed, and managed visitor use through cooperation and coordination with the tourism industry.
"We Shall Overcome: Historic Places of the Civil Rights Movement", was produced by the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO). It was created under the direction of Carol D. Shull, Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, Beth L. Savage, Publications Director, and Patrick Andrus, Heritage Tourism Director. "We Shall Overcome; Historic Places of the Civil Rights Movement" is based on information in the files of the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmark collections. These materials are kept at 800 N. Capitol Street, NW, in Washington, open from 8:00am to 12:00pm and from 1:00pm to 4:00pm, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
Property descriptions and contextual essays were written by Ginny Finch of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration). National Council of Preservation Education intern Frederick MacVaugh, and George Mason University Masters Intern Robert Sandoval provided research assistance and editorial support. Additional property information was provided by the State Historic Preservation Offices of Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. Sara Dillard Pope (NCSHPO) provided design and editorial support. The travel itinerary was designed by Nathan Poe (NCSHPO).
Thank you to all of the individuals, organizations and institutions who provided invaluable information, photographs, and time. Special thanks to Kira Badamo (NCSHPO), Marilyn Harper (NPS), Beth Savage (NPS), and Rustin Quaide (NCSHPO) for your advice, suggestions, and willingness to lend a hand.
Finally, our appreciation to Professor Robert R. Weyeneth of the University of South Carolina's Department of History for reviewing the itinerary and providing insightful suggestions.
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and Row.
Nussbaum Martha C. 2006. Frontiers of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha and Amartya Sen, eds. 1993. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant 1994. Racial Formation in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Piper. Adrian M.S. 2001. “Two Kinds of Discrimination,” reprinted in B. Boxill, ed. Race and Racism. Oxford: Oxford U.P., pp. 193-237.
Pogge, Thomas. 2000. “Justice for People with Disabilities,” ,” in L.P. Francis and A. Silvers, eds., Americans with Diabilities. New York: Routledge, pp. 34-53.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
Rawls, John. 1999 A Theory of Justice rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 1995. “Political Liberalism: Reply to Habermas.” Journal of Philosophy 92: 132-80.
Shattuck, Petra T. and Jill Norgren, 1993. Partial Justice. Providence, RI: Berg Publishers.
Shelby, Tommie. 2006. We Who are Dark. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Silvers, Anita. 1998. “Formal Justice,” in A. Silvers, D. Wasserman and M. Mahowald, eds., Disability, Difference, Discrimination. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield: 13-145.
Silvers, Anita and Leslie Pickering Francis. 2005. “Justice Through Trust: Disability and the ‘Outlier Problem’ in Social Contract Theory,” Ethics 116: 40-76.
Stark, Cynthia A. 2007. “How to Include the Severely Disabled in a Contractarian Theory of Justice.” Journal of Political Philosophy 15: 127-45.
Sunstein, Cass. 2001. Designing Democracy. New York: Oxford U.P.
Taylor, Charles. 1994. “The Politics of Recognition,” in A. Guttman, ed., Multiculturalism. Princeton: Princeton U.P.
Thernstrom, Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom. 1997. America in Black and White. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Valencia-Weber, Gloria. 2004. “Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez: Twenty-five Years of Disparate Cultural Visions,” Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 14: 49- 59.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1995. “Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative,” in W. Kymlicka, ed. The Rights of Minority Cultures. New York: Oxford U.P., pp. 93-119.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1993. Liberal Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.
Wardle, Lynn. 1996. “A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Claims for Same-Sex Marriage,” Brigham Young Law Review 1996: 1-96
Wasserstrom, Richard. 2001. “Racism and Sexism,” reprinted in B. Boxill, ed., Race and Racism. Oxford: Oxford U.P., 307-43.
Wasserstrom, Richard. 1977. “Racism, Sexism, and Preferential Treatment.” UCLA Law Review 581-615.
Wellman, Carl. 1999. The Proliferation of Rights: Moral Progress or Empty Rhetoric? Boulder, CO: Westview.
Wintermute, Robert. 1995. Sexual Orientation and Human Rights. New York: Oxford U.P.
Wu, Frank. 2002. Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White. New York: Basic Books.
Other Internet Resources Civil Rights Division (U.S. Department of Justice)
The Civil Rights Project, (Harvard University)
-->Commission on Civil Rights (U.S.)
Cornell University Legal Information Institute: Civil Rights
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (U.S.)
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights Quarterly
International Human Rights Instruments
Related Entries affirmative action | democracy | feminist (interventions): philosophy of law | homosexuality | liberalism | representation, political | rights: group | rights: human | social minimum [basic income]
Acknowledgments The editors would like to thank Jesse Gero for spotting several typographical errors and formatting errors of other kinds, and for taking the time to bring these to our attention.