DOCSLIB.ORG

Law Enforcement Equal Protection in the South

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Law Enforcement Equal Protection in the South CR ,.~ : L'i/ Thurgood. Marshall Law Library ENFORCEM.NT N A AL PR 'nl:t~~~~,:::r,..,.H~E United States Commission on Civil Rights 1965 ENFORCEMENT A REPORT ON EQUAL PROTECTION IN THE SOUTH United States Commission on Civil Rights 1965 CR 1.2: L 41 Members of the Commission JoHN A. HANNAH, Chairman EUGENE PATIERSON, Vice Chairman FRANKIE M. FREEMAN ERWIN N. GRISWOLD REV. THEODORE M. HESBURGH, C.S.C. ROBERT S. RANKIN WILLIAM L. TAYLOR, Staff Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 75 ce~ts (paper cover) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE UNITEDSTATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, D.C., November 4, 1965. THE PRESIDENT THE PRESIDENTOFTHE SENATE THE SPEAKEROF THE HousE OFREPRESENTATIVES SJRs: The Commission on Civil Rights presents to you this report pursuant to Public Law 85-315as amended. The report presents and analyzes information concerning dis­ criminatory law enforcement practices in several southern com­ munities. This information was. obtained by the Commission from extensive investigations in 1¢4 and a public hearing held in Jackson, Mississippi, in February 1¢5. The Commission has found that too often those responsible for local law enforcement have failed to provide equal protection of the laws to persons at­ tempting to exercise rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Because of the seriousness of the problem and the ineffectiveness of existing remedies, we urge your consideration of the facts presented and of the recommendations for corrective action. Respectfully yours, JoHNA. HANNAH,Chairman EUGENEPATTERSON, Vice Chairman FRANKIEM. FREEMAN ERWINN. GRISWOLD REV.THEODORE M. HESBURGH,c.s.c. ROBERTS. RANKIN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report would not have been possible without the coopera­ tion of many private citizens and government officials. The Commission acknowledges the generous assistance of many Federal officials who assisted the staff in ways too numerous to mention. Particular mention should be made of John Doar, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who assisted the staff in its investigation and preparation for the hearing; officialsof the Veterans Adminis­ tration, who permitted the Commission to use the Jackson Vet­ erans Administration Center for its hearing; and the United States Marshal and his staff in Mississippi, who provided a variety of services. The Commission is grateful to the many private citizens and public officials who gave generously of their time and knowledge to Commission staff members who visited their communities. Beginning in 1g61,the Mississippi State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, now under the leadership of Dr. A. B. Britton, Jr., sponsored public meetings throughout the State to provide Mississippi citizens of both races the oppor­ tunity to discuss the State's civil rights problems. In some com­ munities, the meetings were a dangerous enterprise as well as a novel and difficult undertaking. Members of the Advisory Com­ mittee braved pressure and criticism in their own communities as they made a significant contribution to the improvement of race relations in Mississippi. Finally, the Commission is indebted to the staff of the General Counsel's office which carried these projects to successful com­ pletion under the able and vigorous leadership of William L. Taylor, now Staff Director of the Commission. The present V General Counsel, Howard A. Glickstein, and the former Deputy General Counsel, Michael 0. Finkelstein, directed the following members and former members of the Commission staff in the investigations, the conduct of the hearing, and the preparation of this report and the previously published report, Voting in Missis­ sippi: Klaire V. Adkins, Jeffrey M. Albert, Robert H. Amidon, Mary V. Avant, Edward B. Beis, Richard F. Bellman, Gwendolyne T. Belva, John G. Birkle, Joyce M. Butler, Robert A. Cook, Jonathan W. Fleming, Sandra E. Ford, M. Carl Holman, Charles C. Humpstone, Clarence H. Hunter, Ivan E. Levin, Louise Lewi­ sohn, Roy Littlejohn, JoNell M. Monti, Elisabeth I. F. Murphy, Brian M. Olmstead, Beryl A. Radin, Leda Rothman, Samuel J. Simmons, Betty K. Stradford, Naomi S. Tinsley, and Edwin D. Wolf. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LETTEROF TRANSMITTAL iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V INTRODUCTION... 1 PART I, DENIALS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Chapter 1. The Legacy of Violence . 5 Chapter 2.. Failure to Investigate and Solve In- cidents of Racial Violence . 15 Chapter 3. Failure to Protect or Prosecute . 43 Chapter 4. Official Interference With the Ex- ercise ofFederal Rights . 57 Chapter 5. State and Local Law Enforcement. 85 PART II. REMEDIES Chapter 6. Federal Criminal Legislation. 103 Chapter 7. Federal Civil Remedies........... 121 Chapter 8. Executive Action to Protect the Exercise of Federal Rights. 141 PART Ill, CONCLUSION Chapter 9. Findings and Recommendations... 171 Separate Statement of Commissioner Erwin N. Griswold . 182 vii INTRODUCTION [A}ll executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution .... {U.S. Con­ stitution, article VI, § 3} I, ... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully support the Constitution of the United States and the Con­ stitution of the State of Mississippi, and obey the laws thereof; ... [Miss. Constitution, article 14, § 268-0ath of Office Required of Public Officials in Mississippi.} For those in authority . to defy the law of the land is profoundly subversive not only of our constitutional system but of the presuppositions of a democratic society. [Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 22 (1958)}. This report is a study of the failure of local officials in several Southern States to adhere to their oath of office to support the Federal Constitution. The Commission, since its inception, has continually received and investigated complaints from many States, particularly in the South, that local law enforcement offi­ cials were depriving American citizens of their constitutional rights. In an interim report issued in 1963,the Commission found that there had been "open and flagrant violation of constitutional guarantees in Mississippi." In 1¢4 the Commission staff began investigations in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, which focused on the failure of local officials to prevent or punish acts of racial violence and on interference by these officials with the assertion of constitutional and statutory rights by Negroes, including the right of public protest. The cities studied in the initial investigation-Green­ wood and Jackson, Mississippi; Gadsden, Alabama; St. Augustine, Florida; and Americus, Georgia-were chosen because the Com­ mission had received complaints that in each of these communi- ties attempts by Negroes to assert rights consistently met with violence and suppression. The allegations indicated that instru­ mentalities of local government were being used to preserve the traditional subservient position of the Negro. These and earlier investigations indicated that, although prob­ lems of racial violence and discrimination in law enforcement existed in a number of States, the problems were most serious and widespread in Mississippi. Accordingly, the Commission decided to hold an open hearing in Mississippi to assess objectively and in context the status of law enforcement in that State. The Com­ mission recognized that an in-depth study of one State would not necessarily imply that similar practices existed in communities throughout the South. Comparable complaints, however, from a number of communities elsewhere in the South suggested that verification of some complaints would confirm the existence of a wider problem. In preparing for the hearing, the Commission staff visited numerous counties where widespread racial violence had occurred or where particular problems of law enforcement were reported to exist. The counties finally chosen for presentation at the hearing were located in different parts of the State: Adams and Pike Coun­ ties in the southwest; Jones County in east central; Madison County, north of Jackson; and Leflore and Washington Counties in the Delta. The Commission staff visited these counties and in­ terviewed victims of racial violence and local officials responsible for law enforcement. The Commission's hearings were held in Jackson in February r<j,5. In accordance with the statute regulating such hearings, the Commission first met in executive session on February ro-rr at the Federal courthouse. At this time it afforded an opportu­ nity for persons whom it determined might be defamed, degraded, or incriminated in public testimony to be heard privately. No­ tices were sent to 32 persons, ro of whom appeared. Portions of this testimony, determined by the Commission not to degrade, defame, or incriminate, have been used in this report. 2 The public sessions of the hearing were held in the auditorium of the Veterans Administration Center in Jackson beginning on February 16 and continuing through February 20, 15)65.The first portion of the hearing dealt with denials of the right to vote to Negroes, and the Commission has issued a report of its findings on this subject entitled Voting in Mississippi. The second part of the hearing was devoted to law enforcement. The more than 30 witnesses included Negro citizens,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report on Eric Dreiband: Nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division
    REPORT ON ERIC DREIBAND: NOMINEE FOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION July 2017 ABOUT THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW The principal mission of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar’s leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity – work that continues to be vital today. Among its major areas of work are Educational Opportunities, Fair Housing & Community Development, Voting Rights, Criminal Justice and Economic Justice. Since its inception, the Lawyers’ Committee has been committed to vigorous civil rights enforcement, the pursuit of equal justice under law, and fidelity to the rule of law. ABOUT THE “WHERE IS JUSTICE” REPORT SERIES For 60 years, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has stood at the forefront of efforts to protect and safeguard the civil rights of African American, Latino and other minority communities. As the Division prepares to mark its 60th anniversary, it is important to closely examine the current downward trajectory of civil rights enforcement under United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Oversight from the public and civil rights groups will also be key in exposing actions taken by the Justice Department that jeopardize federal civil rights enforcement. Thus, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is launching a new series of reports entitled “Where Is Justice” to review actions taken by the Justice Department, and to shine a spotlight on key civil rights matters that are being abused or ignored by this administration and Attorney General Sessions.
    [Show full text]
  • Burke Marshall Oral History Interview – JFK#1, 5/29/1964 Administrative Information
    Burke Marshall Oral History Interview – JFK#1, 5/29/1964 Administrative Information Creator: Burke Marshall Interviewer: Louis F. Oberdorfer Date of Interview: May 29, 1964 Place of Interview: Washington D.C. Length: 32 pages Biographical Note Marshall served as Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (1961-1964); general counsel of International Business Machines Corp. (1965-1969); and as an adviser to Robert F. Kennedy. In this interview, he discusses violence in Alabama in May 1961 during the Freedom Rides, including the situation in Birmingham Alabama, negotiations with Governor John Malcolm Patterson, the decision to send federal marshals to Montgomery, Alabama, and federal protection for Martin Luther King, Jr., among other issues. Access Restrictions Open. Usage Restrictions According to the deed of gift signed March 27, 1972, copyright of these materials has passed to the United States Government upon the death of the interviewee. Users of these materials are advised to determine the copyright status of any document from which they wish to publish. Copyright The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excesses of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • Dorothy Landsberg
    Part of the Richard Nixon Oral History Project An Oral History Interview with DOROTHY LANDSBERG Interview by Timothy Naftali November 7, 2011 Sacramento, CA The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum 18001 Yorba Linda Boulevard Yorba Linda, California 92886 (714) 983-9120 FAX: (714) 983-9111 [email protected] http://www.nixonlibrary.gov Descriptive Summary Scope and Content Biographical Note Dorothy Landsberg served on the staff of the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry in 1974. She began her career in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, on the staff of Assistant Attorney General John Doar. A graduate of Earlham College, Landsberg later went on to get her law degree from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. From 1987 until 2007, she was an associate and then a partner with Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann, and Girard, a Sacramento-based law firm. She then became the Director of Clinical Studies at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Administrative Notes About the Richard Nixon Oral History Project The Richard Nixon Oral History Project was created in November 2006 at the initiative of Timothy Naftali to preserve the memories and reflections of former Nixon officials and others who had been prominent in the Nixon era by conducting videotaped interviews. Naftali insisted from the project’s inception that it be a serious, impartial and nonpartisan source of information about President Nixon, his administration, and his times. A second goal of the project was to provide public domain video that would be available as free historical content for museums and for posting on the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Justice Report to the Attorny General of the State of Mississippi
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT TO THE ATTORNY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI INVESTIGATION OF THE 1964 MURDERS OF MICHEAL SCHWERNER, JAMES CHANEY, AND ANDREW GOODMAN U.S. Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Division United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Mississippi Federal Bureau of Investigation Table of Contents I. Introduction ............,......................................... ,~ ................. ,.... ,.. ·... ,,, ... ,....... ,..... ,........ ij, •••• , ........... , ••,, ............................., .......... 3 II. Factual Summary: 1964 l\llutders ................................... ~ .............................................................. :... 5 III .. Initial Federal Investigation: 19()4 11-11111•••• .. •••U••U••• .. ••....... a.............................u .............................. ~ ................................... 8 A. Initiation of Federal Investigation ....................................................................................................... 8 B. Dbcovery of Bodies.: ......................................................... : ............................................................. : 10 i C. Further Confidential"Source Infonnation ................................................................................ ~ ......... 11 [1 D. Jordan and Barnette .................................................. ,......................................................................... 11 l ij- E. Charging lhe 1967 Federal Prosecution ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Selma and the Voting Rights Act in Oral History, the Civil Rights Division by James H
    Selma and the Voting Rights Act in Oral History, The Civil Rights Division By James H. Johnston You hear the name John Doar fleetingly in the recent film, Selma, which portrays the dramatic civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to build support for passage of the Voting Rights Act. The story is told from the perspectives of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson. Most who see the film won’t know who Doar was, but his key role and that of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice in converting the drama into enactment and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act are detailed in the John Doar escorting oral history of Steve Pollak, Doar’s assistant and James Meredith successor as head of the Civil Rights Division. “John was a revered leader in the [Civil Rights] Division. He was in total control…. He had attorneys out in the South -- all over the South…. John went south himself all the time… and it fell to me to manage the Division from Washington,” Steve Pollak remembered.1 John Doar was often personally present and involved in the dramatic events as a representative of federal authority and law. In the photograph above, when James Meredith broke the color barrier at the University of Mississippi in 1962, Doar walked with him onto campus. Doar was in Alabama in March 1965 enforcing Judge Frank Johnson’s order that Dr. Martin Luther King had a constitutional right to lead the march from Selma to Montgomery. The Voting Rights Act was passed in August of that year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Selma March and the Judge Who Made It Happen
    6 BASS 537-560 (DO NOT DELETE) 1/7/2016 2:08 PM THE SELMA MARCH AND THE JUDGE WHO MADE IT HAPPEN Jack Bass During the violent storm that marked the Civil Rights Era that overturned the “Southern Way of Life” marked by racial segregation and the virtual removal of any participation by African-Americans in civil affairs such as voting and serving on juries that followed U.S. Supreme Court rulings at the end of the nineteenth century, no individual judge did more to restore such rights than Frank M. Johnson, Jr. on the Middle District of Alabama. Those Supreme Court cases a half-century earlier of course included Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, but also the almost unknown case of Williams v. Mississippi in 1898, and the two still little- known Giles cases from Alabama that soon followed. Essentially they gave constitutional approval for Southern states to all but eliminate African- Americans from voting. It is the historic background that provides the exceptional importance of Judge Johnson’s unprecedented order in restoring full voting rights for African-American Southerners. At thirty-seven, the youngest federal judge in the nation, Johnson called for a three-judge District Court on which he voted first in the 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott case. Fifth Circuit Judge Richard Rives of Montgomery joined Johnson in a 2–1 ruling that for the first time expanded the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education beyond the issue of segregated schools. And as is well known, the outcome of that case launched the civil rights career of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • John Doar,” He Said
    American National Biography Doar, John Michael (3 Dec. 1921–11 Nov. 2014) Philip A. Goduti Jr. https://doi.org/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.013.0700899 Published online: 27 September 2018 Doar, John Michael (3 Dec. 1921–11 Nov. 2014), lawyer and federal official, was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to William and Mae Doar. His father was a lawyer and his mother a teacher. He grew up in New Richmond, Wisconsin and attended St. Paul Academy, graduating in 1940. After high school he enrolled in Princeton University. His time in college was interrupted so he could serve in the US Air Force from May 1943 to November 1945 during World War II. Doar held the rank of second lieutenant and was training to be a bomber pilot when the war ended. After being discharged he resumed studying economics, politics, and history at Princeton and graduated in 1946 with a B.A. He went on to attend the University of California Berkeley Law School, graduating with his LL.B in 1949. He married Anne Leffingwell on 7 February 1948. They had four children together. In 1950 Doar worked in his family’s law firm, Doar and Knowles, out of New Richmond, Wisconsin. He focused mostly on trial law and made partner in 1953. In 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s assistant attorney general for civil rights Harold Tyler was looking for an assistant for the last six months of the administration. After several candidates refused, a mutual friend recommended Doar to Tyler. On 13 July 1960 he started working for the Department of Justice as special assistant to the attorney general.
    [Show full text]
  • (Delivered on January 24, 2015) to Stand for What
    February 10, 2015 (Delivered on January 24, 2015) To Stand for What is Right Owen Fiss On May 17, 1954 a new chapter began in the history of the nation. On that day, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Brown v. Board of Education condemning the racial caste system that had long characterized American society, thereby initiating a process that would uproot deeply entrenched institutions and practices. In time, this process of change proved so profound and so sweeping that many have called it a civil rights revolution, though it must always be remembered that this was a most unusual revolution: it was a revolution by and through the law. It was the Supreme Court that had called for the end of Jim Crow and then placed the task of implementing its edict on the lower federal courts. As part of this plan, federal judges throughout the South were charged with the duty of eradicating the traditional dual school system, insuring the right to vote, and dismantling the vast network of practices that kept blacks second-class citizens. New statutes, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, reinforced these court victories and gave the principles that emerged from them new force. In some instances new procedures for implementing these principles were devised. As in any period of fundamental change, the citizenry was mobilized. Their action was non-violent and took many different forms – freedom rides, sit-ins, voter registration drives, and marches. These demonstrations and the sometimes brutal reaction to them ensured the passage of new legislation and may even 1 account for the eventual course of judicial decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conversation with John Doar
    CRS_FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/23/2013 2:44 PM Symposium Voices of the Civil Rights Division: Then and Now (October 28, 2011) Featuring Symposium Commentary by Gerald Stern, James P. Turner, John Rosenberg, and Chad Quaintance, a Guided Conversation Between Owen Fiss and John Doar, and an Introduction by Brian Landsberg TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION BY BRIAN K. LANDSBERG ...................................................... 1 II. OPENING COMMENTS BY GERALD STERN ....................................................... 4 III. COMMENTS BY JAMES P. TURNER ................................................................... 9 IV. COMMENTS BY JOHN ROSENBERG ................................................................. 14 V. COMMENTS BY CHAD QUAINTANCE .............................................................. 20 1964 ............................................................................................................... 20 1965 ............................................................................................................... 21 1966 ............................................................................................................... 22 VI. A GUIDED CONVERSATION WITH JOHN DOAR BY OWEN FISS ...................... 25 APPENDIX: WORKS REFERENCED......................................................................... 40 I. INTRODUCTION BY BRIAN K. LANDSBERG* Our law reviews are full of analyses of recent appellate court decisions, of legislation and regulation, and of trends in the law. We often, however,
    [Show full text]
  • Eyes on the Prize | 3 Episode 5: Mississippi: Is This America? (1962 - 1964)
    A Blackside Publication A Study Guide Written by Facing History and Ourselves Copyright © 2006 Blackside, Inc. All rights reserved. Cover photos:(Signature march image) James Karales; (Front cover, left inset image) © Will Counts, Used with permission of Vivian Counts; (All other inset images) © Bettmann/Corbis Design by Planet Studio For permissions information, please see page 225 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD BY REP. JOHN LEWIS. 6 INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 8 Judi Hampton of Blackside Margot Stern Strom of Facing History and Ourselves USING THE STUDY GUIDE . 12 EPISODE 1: AWAKENINGS (1954 - 1956). 14 Black Boys from Chicago Mamie Till-Mobley Goes Public Mose Wright Stands Up Rosa Parks Remembers A New Leader Emerges Women Working Together EPISODE 2: FIGHTING BACK (1957 - 1962). 26 Overturning Segregation in the Supreme Court The First Day of School Mob Rule Cannot be Allowed to Override the Decisions of Our Courts Confronting Desegregation Student to Student President Clinton Remembers Little Rock EPISODE 3: AIN’T SCARED OF YOUR JAILS (1960 - 1961). 40 Nashville Lunch Counter Sit-ins: An Interview with Diane Nash Nonviolence in Nashville Student Power A New Leader Emerges Freedom Rides EPISODE 4: NO EASY WALK (1961 - 1963) . 52 The Albany Movement Letter From a Birmingham Jail President Kennedy Addresses Civil Rights We Want Our Freedom and We Want It Now! We All Did It EYES ON THE PRIZE | 3 EPISODE 5: MISSISSIPPI: IS THIS AMERICA? (1962 - 1964) . 66 The White Citizens’ Councils Trying to Vote in Mississippi Freedom Summer An Integrated Movement Freedom Songs Incomplete Justice: Forty Years Later Taking It for Ourselves EPISODE 6: BRIDGE TO FREEDOM (1965) .
    [Show full text]
  • Keynote Address by Attorney General Nicholas Deb. Katzenbach to the Biennial Convention of the B'nai
    KEYNOTE ADDRESS (as delivered) BY ATTORNEY GENERAL NICHOLAS deB. KATZENBACH TO THE BIENNIAL CONVENTIOli OF THE Bt NAI BI RrrH WOMEN SBEnATOR-PARK HCYI'EL 8:00 P.M., SUNDAY, MARCH" 7, 1965 Mrs. Solov1ch, Mrs. 8"1ms, distinguished ladies -­ and outnumbered gentlemen: It is a grea.t and unusual honor for me to join you tOnight. I say great because of the far-flUIlg membership and activities of the B'nai B'rith Women. And I say unusual because it is not often that a. lawyer must plead his case before so fair a jury. Furthermore, it is a pleasure to be treated so hospitably by a B'nai Bfrith organization. It has not always been that way. Not long after the rioting a.t the University of Mississippi in 1962, I began receiving consider­ able anti-semitic hate mail, condemning me for taking part in the ItJe'W'ish conspiracy" to desegregate Southern universities. One of the wildest such statements vas in a. PBIIIl?hlet which Herman Edelsberg of the Anti-Defamation League sent on to me. In his covering letter, he wrote that for me to be considered Jewish by such Southern hate­ mongers might qualify me as a contributor to the United Jewish Appeal. But, he said, don't expect it to get you into B'nai B'rith. We have higher standardS So you can see I am particularly grateful to you, the members of B1nai B'rith women for inviting"~e here and for your welcome. Your concern at this convention is "The "Challenge of Change." Indeed, it is our unanimous concern.
    [Show full text]
  • The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division: a Historical Perspective As the Division Nears 50
    THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AS THE DIVISION NEARS 50 March 22, 2006 I. INTRODUCTION It is my pleasure to speak to you today about the work of the Civil Rights Division. The Supreme Court, of course, looms large for all of us here at the Department of Justice. But the Court has a particularly special meaning for the Division, as the Division was born of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The history of the Division is intertwined with the Court's legacy regarding the fundamental rights and civil liberties enjoyed by every person in our nation. Founded in 1957, the Division will celebrate its 50th anniversary next year. In honor of this approaching milestone, I will focus my remarks today on the history of the Division and how it has been shaped by some of the seminal events, legislation, and court decisions that have marked the progress of our nation towards embracing civil rights protection for all individuals. II. A HISTORY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION A. Creating A Civil Rights Division, 1957-1959 As you undoubtedly know, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first civil rights legislation enacted into law following Reconstruction. It provided the Department with its first set of tools to prosecute racial inequality and political disenfranchisement. This Act was essentially a voting rights bill authorizing the Department to bring suits seeking relief for African-American voters.1 It also required the establishment of a Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice to enforce federal the civil rights laws.
    [Show full text]