New Attacks on Discrimination

"Figures speak, and when they do, courts listen," noted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The plaintiff was Andrew Hawkins, a black carpenter living in Shaw, Miss. (pop. 2,500). His figures were devastating. Though 60% of Shaw's citizens are black, white areas monopolize the town's sewers, fire hydrants, water mains and street lights. A mere 3% of black homes front on paved streets, compared with 99% of white homes. Are those statistics the result of sheer chance--or a patent violation of the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause?

The judges had no doubts. They ruled that because Shaw failed to show any "compelling" reason for such gross disparities, the town must now move to provide equal municipal services for its black citizens. "Referring to a portion of town as being 'on the other side of the tracks,' " the judges said, "has for too long been a familiar expression to Americans."

Drastic Changes. Civil rights lawyers believe that if Hawkins v. Town of Shaw stands up on appeal, the result may well approach the law's historic impact on racial discrimination in schools, jobs, housing and public accommodations. Shaw could force big as well as small cities across the U.S. to reallocate everything from police patrols to garbage pickups and park space. It could help make federal revenue sharing honest at the local level.

The decision did raise other issues. For one thing, it was based on racial but not class grounds, leaving the treatment of poor whites for future court cases. Also left open was whether extra services could be provided to an affluent neighborhood by specially assessing the neighborhood's residents. Moreover, the difficulties of proving inequality in sprawling urban ghettos may be painfully complex compared with Shaw.

Equal services might not even be sufficient. Says Howard Glickstein, staff director of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission: "You may need two cops to patrol a certain white area, but four to do the same job in the ghetto."

Civil rights lawyers have already filed a new suit which seems certain to be bolstered by Shaw; it attacks all sorts of alleged inequalities (overcrowded schools, unfair zoning, sparse middle-income housing) in the Anacostia area of Washington, D.C. If that suit prevails, U.S. cities may face drastic changes. In light of Shaw and its emerging descendants, it is clear that American courts remain a powerful forum for battling race prejudice.

A spate of other recent cases serve as reminders that the law is, in fact, a vibrant anti-discrimination weapon. In New York State, for instance, Builder Samuel Lefrak has just signed a court-sanctioned agreement with the Government on some important anti-discrimination regulations for private housing. Prodded by a federal suit, which has now been dropped. Lefrak has promised to process all apartment applications with a time clock to ensure that first come are truly first served. Lefrak credit investigations will consider blacks and whites equally, accepting anyone whose weekly income is 90% of the monthly rent. The Federal Government will also get a written report explaining the rejection of any applicant for an apartment.

Bus v. School. On the especially touchy question of school busing, the California Supreme Court has issued an ingenious opinion that may well tempt other state courts. In an indirect effort to blunt school integration, California, like many states and communities, had passed a law that banned busing of children without a parent's consent. With equal indirection, the California court upheld the busing consent regulation --but warned that school boards may, without parental agreement, still assign children to distant schools in order to achieve integration. Thus a child is no longer required to take the school bus in California. He is merely required to attend the school to which he is assigned.

Pocketbook Oriented. New anti-discrimination legal attacks have even reached fraternal organizations, such as the Loyal Order of Moose, the Fraternal Order of Eagles and the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, all of which admittedly retain whites-only admission policies.* The leading case involves Moose Lodge 107 in Harrisburg, Pa. A federal appeals court has ruled that, by granting the lodge a liquor license, the state has unlawfully supported discrimination. If the decision is upheld, other fraternal lodges and any racially exclusive country clubs that rely on bar profits could be in serious trouble.

An even more pocketbook-oriented decision was recently issued by the Oregon Court of Appeals, which upheld a $200 award to a young black woman, Beverly Williams, for the "humiliation, frustration, anxiety and nervousness" she suffered when she was barred from renting an apartment. The landlord was ordered both to quit discriminating and to pay the $200 in damages. In a similar New Jersey case last year, a rejected black tenant was awarded $500 for humiliation. If such awards continue, landlords may conclude that desegregation is cheaper than discrimination.

* Another Elks club, the Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World, is mostly black.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.