Dean STENNING. I cannot agree with the basic tenet that the majority of Episcopalians go to that church because they want to associate with other Episcopalians. I think, I hope they go for other more basic reasons than that.

Senator ERVIN. I cannot see that there is any harm in a man preferring to go to one church rather than another. Of course, if he is like me and predestined to go to a Presbyterian Church, I think he will go there.

Dean STENNING. My grandmother was a Presbyterian, sir.

Senator ERVIN. I was intrigued by your drawing a distinction between the 18th amendment and the fair housing laws. You said that the reason that the 18th amendment failed was because too many people did not see any moral iniquity in taking a little wine for the stomach's sake or for any other sake. Do you not see the necessity for this bill in the fact that people, like the people in the case of prohibition, are not willing to sell their homes in residential communities without a preference on the basis of race or religion?

Dean STENNING. Maybe we should follow along with the subject that you opened the door to this, the Episcopal Church, and try to see what it says to this situation.

Senator ERVIN. That is not responsive to my question.

Dean STENNING. No, but I am trying to respond to your question by pointing out where this fine distinction is made, Senator.

Senator ERVIN. I am not making a distinction. I am just asking you a simple question that I would like to get an answer to. Dean STENNING. Would you re-ask your question?

Senator ERVIN. Read the question, please.

(The question was read by the reporter.)

Dean STENNING. I think we have to be very frank, Senator. I think we have to say that fair housing legislation is not popular legislation. We found this out in our experience in Rhode Island. It took 6 years to acquire fair housing legislation. And finally, it was passed by the legislature over strong objections by a great many people in Rhode Island. Yet it was passed when the members of the legislature came to recognize that discrimination in the community was morally wrong, that it was socially unacceptable, that it was, if we can use an analogy, a cancer within the life of the community, and that they felt it was necessary to pass this legislation to prohibit this kind of discrimination because of this situation.

Senator ERVIN. Well, there are areas of the country where it is entirely socially acceptable to restrict sales in a residential community to people of the race of the seller, is it not?

Dean STENNING. You say is it not

Senator ERVIN. Is it not socially acceptable throughout the length and breadth of the United States for the owner of a residence to sell or rent that property to a person of his own race in preference to people of other races?

Dean STENNING. No, sir; I could not say that this is universally so. Senator ERVIN. I did not ask universally. I said in many areas of the United States.

Dean STENNING. In large segments, yes.

Senator ERVING. Do you not think that people prefer to live in residential sections with people of the same ethnic origin and people of similar backgrounds, and that that is a law of nature?

Dean STENNING. No, sir; I cannot agree that is a law of nature. Senator ERVIN. You do not?

Dean STENNING. No, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Well, it is a practice among human beings?

Dean STENNING. I think it is a practice. It may not necessarily be a law of nature.

Senator ERVIN. I have to go to the floor of the Senate to vote and then to a luncheon. I do not know if counsel has any questions, but I thank you for your appearance here.

Dean STENNING. Thank you.

Mr. AUTRY. Dean Stenning, you mentioned that Governor Chafee testified in favor of this legislation earlier. At the time he testified, in response to questions, he said he would favor exemptions to this bill to the extent that you had exemptions to the Rhode Island fair housing law-that is, with reference to owner-occupied dwellings. Would you agree with him on that or do you agree with the coverage of this bill?

Dean STENNING. I think when you talk about exemption, the question always comes up, where are you going to draw the line? In Rhode Island, two and three family owner-occupied houses are exempt. And I worked for the passage of this bill. I think my position would be the same as far as Federal legislation is concerned. I think it is significant that in States-Massachusetts for one-where a relatively weak, relatively weak bill was passed in previous years, stronger bills have now been passed and uniquely, they were passed through the efforts and support of the real estate association, who felt that one thing that they needed to do was to tighten up the law. But as I say, I worked for the passage of owner-occupied two- or three-family houses and would support it in the bill.

Mr. AUTRY. You also mentioned on page 8 the right to privacy argument which has been raised before the subcommittee. That particular contention has been raised in connection with the owner-occupied single family dwelling-for example the elderly person who rents out a room to supplement social security income. If the exemption was written in, that would take care of the privacy argument as far as you are concerned?

Dean STENNING. I would have no problems with this.

Mr. AUTRY. Just one more question. You mentioned Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" speech in which he spoke of property rights and human rights. Is it not true that there he was concerning himself with property rights in human beings?

Dean STENNING. Yes, in a different context, as I pointed out in the parenthetical phrase. This was in a different context. And yet I think in the basic issue, there is a very real similarity here. This is why I used the quote at that time.

Mr. AUTRY. Thank you very much.

On the order of the chairman we will recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 27, 1966.)

CIVIL RIGHTS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:35 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., presiding. Present: Senators Ervin, Hruska, and Javits.

Also present: George B. Autry, chief counsel and staff director; Houston Groome and Lewis W. Evans, counsel; Rufus Edmisten, research assistant; and John L. Baker, minority counsel.

Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order.
Counsel will call the first witness.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the first witness today is Mr. Edward Rutledge, executive director of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing of New York City, who is appearing on the invitation of the subcommittee, issued at the request of Senator Javits. STATEMENT OF EDWARD RUTLEDGE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK E. WOOD, JR., ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; AND MISS MARGARET FISHER, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS, NCDH

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Rutledge, I would suggest that you identify those accompanying you for purposes of the record.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With me on my left is Miss Margaret Fisher, the director of information and publications of NCDH and the editor of Trends in Housing, a copy of which is before you.

On my right is the associate executive director of the national committee, Mr. Jack E. Wood, Jr.

My name is Edward Rutledge and I am the executive director of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, known as NCDH.

The NCDH was founded in 1950 as an affiliation of major national religious, civil rights, labor, and civic organizations, now numbering 41. From its inception, the committee's efforts have been directed toward eliminating discrimination and segregation in housing and achieving conditions, through community education and action, that

65-506-66-pt. 2- -29

will enable every American family to secure a decent home in a suitable integrated living environment.

I would like to express our appreciation for the invitation to appear before this subcommittee, extended by you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Ervin, as requested by Senator Javits. As we have explained to you in a letter, we are not appearing as witnesses endorsing any kind of legislation, but rather as representatives of an organization long experienced in the housing/civil rights field and also as individuals whose backgrounds have given us expert and intimate knowledge in this

crucial area of national concern.

For 20 years Mr. Wood has worked with the housing industry, and has been involved in many aspects of housing, planning, urban renewal, and civil rights. He was the national housing director of NAACP, working closely with Roy Wilkins, and prior to joining the staff of NCDH as the associate executive director, he was the housing director of the New York City Commission on Human Rights, administering that city's pioneering fair housing law.

Miss Fisher has been with NCDH for the past 9 years, and has made Trends in Housing, our monthly publication, the recognized resource for accurate and reliable information in this field. A writer of many articles and pamphlets, Miss Fisher has been engaged in the civil rights field for 25 years, although you would not judge that by looking at her face. She worked with the War Manpower Commission during World War II in programs to expand employment opportunities, and later served as director of information for the Southern Regional Council.

My own experience in housing and civil rights stems back to my work with the FHA, PHA, and HHFA from 1946 until 1955, as the intergroup relations adviser for these agencies in various regions of the United States. From 1955 to 1964, I was the housing director for the New York State Commission for Human Rights, administering the State's fair housing law. Since that time, I have been the executive director of NCDH.

As requested by you, Senator Ervin, on July 20 we submitted for distribution to the members of the subcommittee copies of a statement detailing the position of NCDH on issues underlying title IV of the 1966 civil rights bill.

This morning I shall simply summarize the major points we would like to make.

Senator ERVIN. Let the record show at this point that the entire written statement will be printed in full in the body of the record immediately following Mr. Rutledge's remarks.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In our judgment, the issue before you involves the most momentous and explosive internal problems confronting our Nation today. Housing discrimination and segregation lie at the root of the ghetto system and all of its attendant evils: racial separation, alienation, and tension: mounting strife over segregated, overcrowded, inherently unequal schools; and unemployment and underemployment of millions of Negroes and other minorities. The racially restricted housing market has created the intolerable conditions of life in the ghetto itself, and the inevitable hopelessness, bitterness and rebellion of those who are trapped within its confines.

Daily headlines of recent weeks from Omaha, Nebr., Troy, N.Y., Jacksonville, Fla.; as well as from the great cities of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Cleveland constitute a stern warning that the problems arising from the ghetto way of life, created and sustained by housing discrimination and segregation, are the social dynamite of our time.

I suggest that the issue before you is far broader than insuring by law that the housing dollar in a black hand buys precisely the same quality, the same free choice, the same service and the same treatment in the housing marketplace as the housing dollar in a white hand. The real issue implicit in title IV is whether the Government of the United States is prepared to continue supporting and extending a ghetto way of life, or whether it is prepared to launch a determined effort to achieve a society of free citizens and to fulfill this Nation's promise of a decent home in a suitable living environment for every American family.

I suggest further that, without a full-scale attack on the ghetto system itself, the Nation's efforts to improve the quality of education and training, expand employment opportunities, improve health and recreational facilities, wipe out poverty, ease racial tensions and to save our cities will indeed be frustrated.

Surely the crisis proportions of the problem before us are not reflected by a statistics saying that 90 percent of our population is white and 10 percent is nonwhite, but rather by a recognition that threefourths of the Negro population lives in the urban centers of our Nation, South and North, and that the confinement of these citizens to the urban core is resulting in a ghetto way of life so well set forth by the President when he stated, "*** for the great majority of Negro Americans the poor, the unemployed, the uprooted and the dispossessed-there is a grim story. They * are another nation."

*

*

The Federal Government bears a major responsibility for the segregated living patterns that have become a national institution, and it has the responsibility and obligation to redress a 30-year record of misuse of Federal aids and powers.

When Government entered the housing field in the 1930's, one of its main purposes was to save a bankrupt real estate industry. From the beginning, administration of Federal housing programs was dominated by real estate interests. The Federal housing agencies, in concert with the industry, charted the course, engineered the plan and provided the wherewithal for a racially segregated America.

Indeed, Senator, we, in our own style, built apartheid American style.

Our cities are ringed with all-white subdivisions built under FHA and VA mortgage insurance and guarantee programs. Racially restricted housing was not only encouraged, it was required. Public housing was built in separate projects for Negroes and whites. In some parts of the country public housing was built separately for Negroes, separately for Mexicans, separately for Anglos. It is still 80-percent segregated. A pattern of racial separation was established, which permeated the entire housing market.

Even today, under a national policy committed to desegregation, Federal aids and powers are still being used to create, perpetuate, and extend segregated neighborhoods and communities.