poverty & race research action council

Poverty & Race Research Action Council • 1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036202/906-8023 • FAX: 202/842-2885 • E-mail: [email protected] • www.prrac.org

Recycled Paper

Right to Organize ..... 1South Africa’sLow-Cost Housing... 3

Thompson v. HUD .... 7Commentaries onKahlenberg/Marvit 13

Kahlenberg/MarvitRespond ............... 17

Resources .............. 20

CONTENTS:

January/February 2013 Volume 22: Number 1

(Please turn to page 2)

A Civil Right to Organizeby Richard D. Kahlenberg & Moshe Z. Marvit

Richard D. Kahlenberg ([email protected]) is a Senior Fellow at TheCentury Foundation.

Moshe Z. Marvit ([email protected]) is a labor and civil rights attor-ney.

They coauthored Why Labor Or-ganizing Should Be A Civil Right: Re-building a Middle Class Democracyby Enhancing Worker Voice (CenturyFoundation Press, 2012), from whichthis essay is adapted.

On April 4, 1968, when Dr. Mar-tin Luther King, Jr. was tragicallygunned down in Memphis, Tennessee,he stood at the intersection of two greatforces for greater human dignity: theCivil Rights Movement and the labormovement. King was in Memphis, itshould be remembered, to supportstriking black sanitation workers whomarched with King carrying posterswith the iconic message, “I AM AMAN.”

The signs had resonance in part be-cause, as black Americans, the sanita-tion workers were sick of being deri-sively referred to by racist whites as“boy.” But in addition, as garbagecollectors, they were tired of being

poorly treated by management and byfellow citizens, who looked downupon them. Because their employerwould not provide them with a placeto shower after work, garbage collec-tors were shunned by bus drivers andfellow passengers and often had towalk home. Managers, failing to fullyrecognize the basic humanity of sani-tation workers, refused to install safetyfeatures on garbage trucks. After twosanitation workers were accidentallycrushed to death by a defective pack-ing mechanism on a garbage truck,1,300 workers went on strike. Theirmessage, “I AM A MAN,” containeda powerful demand for better treat-ment.

King rallied with sanitation work-ers and affirmed their dual message ofracial and economic justice. “When-ever you are engaged in work thatserves humanity and is for the build-ing of humanity, it has dignity and ithas worth,” King told American Fed-eration of State, County and Munici-pal Employees (AFSCME) workers inMarch 1968. He told them, “All la-bor has dignity.”

King had long seen the connectionbetween the labor and civil rights

movements as engines for humanequality for men and women alike.While some racist union locals fa-mously resisted progress for blacks,most were far more progressive on is-sues of civil rights than society as awhole. The massive labor federation,the American Federation of Labor andthe Congress of Industrial Organiza-tions (AFL-CIO), became a criticalsupporter of civil rights legislation,including the 1964 Civil Rights Act,which, in Title VII, forbade racial dis-crimination in employment. In a 1961speech to the AFL-CIO, King de-clared, “Our needs are identical with

Given the decline in labor union membership and influence, on top of the recent anti-union states campaigns, Iresponded positively to Richard Kahlenberg’s suggestion that we organize a Forum around his (and co-author MosheMarvit’s) new book, Why Labor Organizing Should Be a Civil Right. I asked several well-known figures from the laborand civil rights worlds, plus some academics and public interest group leaders, to provide their commentaries on thearticle below, a précis of the Kahlenberg/Marvit book. Their interesting and useful views appear on the pages that follow- CH

POVERTY & RACE RESEARCH ACTION COUNCILPRRAC Poverty & Race

Poverty and Race (ISSN 1075-3591)is published six times a year by the Pov-erty & Race Research Action Council,1200 18th Street NW, Suite 200, Wash-ington, DC 20036, 202/906-8023, fax:202/842-2885, E-mail: [email protected] Hartman, Editor. Subscriptionsare $25/year, $45/two years. Foreignpostage extra. Articles, article sugges-tions, letters and general comments arewelcome, as are notices of publications,conferences, job openings, etc. for ourResources Section. Articles generallymay be reprinted, providing PRRACgives advance permission.

© Copyright 2013 by the Poverty &Race Research Action Council. Allrights reserved.

2 • Poverty & Race • Vol. 22, No. 1 • January/February 2013

(ORGANIZE: Cont. from page 1)

Labor organizing shareswith the Civil RightsMovement the basicquest for human dignity.


labor’s needs: decent wages, fair work-ing conditions, livable housing, old agesecurity, health and welfare measures,conditions in which families can grow,have education for their children, andrespect in the community.... The du-ality of interests of labor and Negroesmakes any crisis which lacerates you acrisis from which we bleed.”

In the last year of his life, King hadbegun a multi-racial Poor People’sCampaign, and in his final Sundaysermon, delivered at the National Ca-thedral in Washington, DC, he calledhis vision of economic justice nothingless than his “last, greatest dream.” InMemphis, King recounted the great vic-tories for civil rights in Montgomeryand Selma, and suggested, “You aregoing beyond purely civil rights ques-tions to questions of human rights,”raising “the economic issue.” Peoplemust not only have the right to sit at alunch counter, but also the right toafford a hamburger, he told the audi-ence.

What Came of King’sTwin Dreams?

In the years since King was struckdown, enormous improvements havebeen made in racial attitudes and inthe life chances of African Americans.The black middle class has grown sig-nificantly, the number of black pro-

fessionals has increased, and the black/white educational gap on such mattersas high school graduation rates hasshrunk dramatically. While far moreprogress needs to be made, we havesince 1968 witnessed a sea change inracial attitudes, culminating in theonce inconceivable idea of a blackAmerican President being elected. AsHarvard Law professor RandallKennedy has written in his 2011 book,The Persistence of the Color Line:Racial Politics and the Obama Presi-dency: “One of the great achievements

of the Civil Rights Revolution was itsdelegitimization of racial prejudice.”In that sense, the 1964 Civil RightsAct has proven a tremendous success.Among the broader public in Americaand internationally, the Civil RightsMovement is rightly regarded as iconicin the struggle for human dignity andinclusion. While more work surelyneeds to be done, the trajectory on raceis generally pointed in the right direc-tion.

By contrast, since the 1960s, theAmerican labor movement has seenenormous setbacks. Labor oncedreamed that, with the vanquishing ofJim Crow, the racism that had keptworking-class whites in the South fromuniting with blacks would diminishand Southern states could be unionized.But organized labor did not conquerthe South; instead, to a significant de-gree, Southern anti-union practiceshave spread through much of the coun-try. From its peak in the mid-1950s,organized labor has declined from morethan one-third of private sector work-ers (and one-half of the industrialworkforce) to less than one-tenth. To-day, even public sector unionism isunder attack in several states. Mean-while, economic inequality has sky-rocketed to the point that the top 1%of Americans own more than the bot-

tom 90%, and income from produc-tivity gains have gone almost exclu-sively to the top 10%. Economistsagree the two phenomena are con-nected, and that rising economic in-equality in America is due in some sig-nificant measure to the weakness of theAmerican labor movement.

The Civil Rightsand National LaborRelations Acts

There are many factors that helpexplain why the nation has progressedon King’s vision for civil rights whileit has moved backward on his empha-sis on the importance of economicequality and union strength. However,among the most important—and theeasiest to remedy—is the substantialdifference between the strength of ourlaws on civil rights and on labor. Sev-enty-five years of experience with theNational Labor Relations Act of 1935(NLRA) and 45 years of experiencewith Title VII of the Civil Rights Actof 1964 suggest that the former hasproven largely ineffectual in protect-ing workers, while the latter has beenquite successful in diminishing dis-crimination and changing social atti-tudes.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act, subse-quently amended in 1991, providespowerful penalties for employers whodiscriminate on the basis of race, sex,national origin or religion. Under the1991 amendments, employment dis-crimination remedies have been ex-panded to include not only back paybut compensatory and punitive dam-ages up to $300,000. Civil rights lawsalso provide plaintiffs with the oppor-tunity to pursue legal discovery, some-thing that employers assiduously seekto avoid. Furthermore, plaintiffs aregiven access to jury trials; and whenplaintiffs prevail, defendants are liablefor up to double the hourly rate forplaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

Under the NLRA, it is likewise il-legal to discriminate against employ-ees for trying to organize a union, be-

Poverty & Race • Vol. 22, No. 1 • January/February 2013 • 3

Three million familieshave benefited from thegovernment’s housingprograms.


Beyond Bricks and Mortar: South Africa’s Low-Cost Housing Program 18 Years after Democracy

by Caroline Wanjiku Kihato

“Everyone has a right to have access to adequate housing … the state must take reasonable legislative and other measureswithin its available resources to achieve progressive realization of this right.”

The South African Constitution, 1996

Caroline Wanjiku Kihato ([email protected]) is a writer and re-searcher on migration and urbaniza-tion in Africa. She lives in Johannes-burg.

Phindile tightened the belt of herheavy black coat and stuffed the scarfaround her neck to fend off the chillyAugust winds. Her body gave an in-voluntary shudder as she waited for amini-bus taxi to take her to work atone of Johannesburg’s wealthy north-ern suburbs. From the frozen street-lights, she could make out the silhou-ette of the even-patterned Reconstruc-tion and Development Program houses.RDP houses—as they are known col-loquially—are homes for low-incomeSouth Africans, provided by thecountry’s post-apartheid government.A typical house is 36 square meters,with an open-plan bedroom, loungeand kitchen and separate bathroom(Moolla et al., 2011). In an hour anda half, it would be light and the hum-drum of daybreak would swallow thenight’s silence as families prepared togo to work, send children to school oropen their businesses. For now, the4am quiet provided her much-neededstillness before the busy day ahead.

Phindile is among 3 million SouthAfrican families who have benefitedfrom the government’s housing pro-gram. In 1994, the democraticallyelected African National Congress(ANC) government embarked on theReconstruction and Development Pro-gram—an ambitious framework forbuilding a democratic non-racial futurefor South Africa. The RDP documentreads: “Our history has been a bitterone dominated by colonialism, racism,

apartheid, sexism and repressive laborpolicies. Our income distribution isracially distorted and ranks as one ofthe most unequal in the world—lavishwealth and abject poverty characterizeour society” (ANC, 1994: 2). Givenapartheid’s legacy, the new govern-ment committed to providing housingfor all. In what would be a remark-able, if ambitious, housing policy,President Mandela’s government andsubsequent administrations embarkedon building poor South Africans aplace they could call home and start

their life in a new South Africa withdignity and hope for a better future.Over the last 18 years, South Africahas spent R60bn (USD7.5bn) and de-livered 3 million houses to poor house-holds (FFC, 2012).

Phindile was born in Soweto in1969, 17 miles from Johannesburg’scity center. Soweto, which is short forSouth Western townships, began as asettlement in 1905 that housed blacklaborers who worked in the city’s goldmines and the growing manufacturingand service industries. Phindile’smother was a domestic worker whomade a living cleaning and taking careof white families’ homes and children.When Phindile turned two, her mothercould no longer afford to keep her andher older sister in Soweto. “She wassuffering because she worked for anAfrikaans family who would pay herand then take her money away. If she

refused to give them the money theyhad paid her, they threatened to fireher.” I was sitting at a dining tableacross from Phindile in an apartmentin one of Johannesburg’s wealthy sub-urbs where she worked as a domesticcleaner once a week. She looked at meand continued, “My mother had nochoice but to take me to my granny inRichmond in rural Kwa Zulu.”Phindile spent 18 years with her grand-mother. On the rare occasions that sheand her sister visited their mother inJohannesburg, apartheid’s racist lawsreminded them that they were not wel-come. “I remember one holiday, westayed in my mother’s small room inOrange Grove (a former white suburbin Johannesburg) in the garden of herbaas’ [Afrikaans word for boss] house.Every time we heard the madam com-ing, my mother would hide us underthe bed and tell us to keep quiet. Westayed in the room silent because it wasillegal for us to be there. You had tocarry a dompass (pass) to live inJohannesburg if you were black at thattime, and my mother’s pass could betaken away just because she had herchildren with her.”

Apartheid’s Laws

Apartheid’s laws forbade blacks toown land or property in white SouthAfrica. Indeed, black people were con-sidered temporary sojourners to thecity, a place where they had tempo-rary residence for the duration of theirworking lives. As Johannesburg’seconomy grew in the 50s and 60s,large black townships like Soweto werebuilt miles from the city’s center to

The program has beendogged by corruption.

Analysts contended that the poor lo-cation of the subsidized homes–oftenat the margins of cities where land isaffordable—the lack of social infra-structure such as schools, police sta-tions and clinics; and the “ghetto-ization” of the poor was inadvertentlycreating unviable, dysfunctional settle-ments. A recent study of subsidizedhousing across the country showed thatfew have viable economies (Shisaka,2011). Those built around the city arelocated in peri-urban areas, about 18to 25 miles out of town, where trans-port is non-existent or too expensivefor residents to travel to find work.Yet it is not just that these settlementsare spatially marginalized. Even wherethey are well-located—such asThembalethu, which is close to thetourist town of George in the WesternCape, beaches, nature reserves and athriving service economy—they remaineconomically isolated. Indeed,Thembalethu remains poor despite itslocation close to the former white townof George (Shisaka, 2011). Unwit-tingly, the democratic government’shousing program has perpetuated themarginalization of poor black house-holds—failing to unite apartheid’s ra-cial divisions. The Department of Hu-man Settlements has made attempts toreview its policies and build mixed-income households, but the success ofthese initiatives has been dampened bymiddle-class not-in-my-back-yardfears of race and class integration. Theoutcome has been that poor urbanhouseholds continue to live far fromwork and business opportunities, whilethe well-to-do live in high-walled en-closures in areas with world-class in-frastructure, schools and economicopportunities.

A year before Mandela’s release andthe end of apartheid, Phindile movedto Johannesburg. “I came because youknow at home when you are youngthey would test your virginity everymonth. One day my boyfriend tookmy virginity and I knew if the bigmama’s, the virginity testers, foundout everybody would be talking badlyabout me.” Phindile’s eyes fixed onher ironing as she continued, “know-ing what would happen to me, I tried

(SOUTH AFRICA: Cont. from page 3)


house black laborers. Politically,blacks were permanent outsiders, withno suffrage or decision-making pow-ers to determine how the city was run.Moreover, apartheid laws forbade thelocation of business and industry inplaces like Soweto. With no industry,there was no revenue to invest in in-frastructure, schools and urban ser-vices. In fact, black families paid morefor water and electricity in apartheidSouth Africa than wealthy families be-cause they lacked the industries thatsubsidized household consumption.What money black working-classfamilies made was spent in white ar-eas—this expenditure made white ar-eas richer and poor areas poorer. Theapartheid city was a divided one, wherethose who toiled in its mines andworked in its industries lived in third-world squalid conditions, while a whiteminority lived in first-world comforts.

Given apartheid’s legacy, thedemocratic government’s housing pro-gram could not have come at a bettertime. In many ways, South Africa’sliberation was as much a political asan economic one. Black urban dwell-ers were now not only able to vote fortheir local councilors and have a sayin how money was spent in the city,they also had the opportunity to haveequity in it—own property or a pieceof land which they could bequeath totheir children. Indeed, the transfer ofhouses to the poor through the hous-ing program aimed at just this—level-ing the inequalities of apartheid andproviding an asset to people who hadbeen denied rights to the city. Thenotion of housing as an asset was animportant one. Housing was seen asthe means through which the poor

could borrow, invest and grow theirwealth in ways that would improvetheir life trajectories and get them outof the structural barriers created by theapartheid state. The housing programwas a means of giving full meaning tothe term citizenship, for a majoritywho had for so long been excludedfrom South Africa’s wealth.

But recent hearings held by the con-stitutionally-mandated Financial andFiscal Commission (FFC) have high-lighted that the government’s supply-side approach has set itself up for theimpossible task of catching a movingtarget. No matter how many housesthe state provides, the list for qualify-ing households earning less thanR3,500 (USD 438) per month contin-ues to grow. Even with its impressiverecord of delivery, 2 million SouthAfricans remain homeless. Yet despitethe government’s redistributive efforts,

economists calculate that since thedemocratic government has come intopower, the gini coefficient, whichmeasures inequality, has increased andis among the highest in the world(Leibrandt, 2012). The 2011 censusputs the country’s unemployment rateat 29.8%. When comparing the blackand white populations, the inequalityis stark. Fully, 35.6% of the blackpopulation is unemployed in SouthAfrica, while only 5.9% of whites areunemployed. With the current popu-lation growth rates, migration to cit-ies and the economic downturn, thenumber of households needing state as-sistance is likely to increase.

Spatial Marginalization

But there are other problems fac-ing the housing program. By the late1990s, both scholars and practitionersbegan to point out that the emphasison the delivery of bricks and mortarovershadowed the importance ofbuilding sustainable communities(Huchzermeyer, 2001; Rust, 2003).

Visit PRRAC’swebsite at

www.prrac.org

Poverty & Race • Vol. 22, No. 1 • January/Februrary 2013 • 5


to hide in the trees so I would not betested. But the old women found meand forced me to walk through the vil-lage to test. That is when they foundout I was not a virgin, and everybodyknew. It was a big shame for me, andI had to leave the rural areas and go toJohannesburg.” Using her mother’sconnections in Johannesburg, sheslowly got piece jobs as a domesticworker—a day here and there, whereshe cleaned people’s houses and didtheir laundry for a daily rate. A fewyears later, she married and had twochildren, a boy and a girl, and wasjust settling into building her familywhen her husband was killed in a caraccident. With the loss of an incomein the household, Phindile’s life wasplunged into disarray and teetered onthe brink of poverty. “I was desper-ate. I had two small children, my hus-band had died and I was living in aone-room mkhukhu (shack) and pay-ing too much for rent.” Phindile hadheard about the government’s housingprogram, and she and her late husbandhad put their names on the municipalcouncil list in Thembisa (a townshipeast of Johannesburg) to receive ahouse. “I was on the list for more thanten years. Many people would comeand ask us to pay a lot of money, prom-ising us a house. I would pay becauseI was desperate. I don’t know howmany people I paid and how many listsI never went on. There was a lot ofcorruption, our names were nevercalled for a house.”

Phindile’s experience is not unique.One of the FFC’s findings has beenthat the housing program has beendogged by corruption, with local of-ficials extorting money from vulner-able households with promises of anRDP house which they never receive.And it is not just the very poor whoare falling for these scams. The extentof corruption was brought home twomonths ago in a recent exposé into thefraudulent sale of land in Lenasia, atownship south of Johannesburg. It isalleged that some government officialswere illegally selling and issuingfraudulent titles to unsuspecting work-ing-class families. The private sectorhas not been blameless. A household

survey conducted by Statistics SouthAfrica showed that one-third of RDPbeneficiaries were unhappy with thequality of the houses (Masombuka,2010). The corruption, delays and sub-standard housing has sparked nation-wide service delivery protests, withpeople marching against the continuedexclusion of the poor in South Africa’steen-age democracy.

With the government so actively in-volved in the housing sector, expertshave argued that it has distorted thehousing market, creating a gap wherea large number of households whoearn too much to qualify for the sub-sidy, but too little to get a bank loan,remain without adequate and afford-able choices for shelter. But the gov-ernment also admits that it can nolonger afford to sustain such an ambi-tious program—coffers are just too lim-ited to provide housing for all in thesame way as it envisaged 18 years ago.In April 2011, the Housing MinisterTokyo Sexwale told Parliament that“the current increasing dependency andpressure on the state are not sustain-able for the country going forward.Somewhere, sometime in the future,”

he argued, “there will come a need tohave a cutoff point on the govern-ment’s subsidized housing, wherepeople can begin to do things for them-selves.”

Beyond Bricks and Mortar

After waiting ten years, Phindile’sdesperation for a home where shecould raise her children reached itspeak. “One day, I picked myself upand went to the council in Thembisaand pleaded with them. ‘You eat mymoney,’ I told them, ‘you take otherpeople and give them a house, andbecause I don’t have a husband youdon’t take me.’ I think that man feltsorry for me, and one day they calledmy name to go to the RDP house.”

There is a bright side to SouthAfrica’s housing program—one that isnot measureable in Rands and cents orin the number of bricks delivered. “Forthe first time in my life, I felt like asomebody, I had a home,” Phindilesaid to me. “When I got my key Icould not believe it. I jumped up and

Thanks for yourcontributions to PRRAC!

Marc Bendick, Jr.Joel BlauBradford BrownHarry CareyAmy Eppler-EpsteinFair Housing Center of

Metropolitan DetroitJoseph FeinbergEllen FeingoldPaul FischerHenry FreedmanDaniel GoldsteinJeremiah GoldsteinAlice HenkinHenry Kahn &

Mickey GillmorKen KimerlingPaul Kivel

You can also donate online at www.prrac.org

Catie MarshallNancy McArdleMichael MeltsnerDon NakanishiFred PincusYale & Barbara RabinAllan RodgersTony SarmientoEmmett SchaeferTony SchumanDarian ShawJohn & Laura Lee SimonSidney & Ethel SocolarGirardeau SpannGreg SquiresGwen UreyJay WilkinsonJody Yetzer


The housing programgave full citizenshipfor the majority.

(SOUTH AFRICA: Cont. from page 5)

References

African National Congress (1994) The Reconstruction and DevelopmentProgramme: A Policy Framework. Johannesburg: African National Congress

Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) (2012) Building an inclusionary hous-ing market: Shifting the paradigm for housing delivery in South Africa. Pre-sentation to the FinMark Forum on 25 April, 2012

Huchzermeyer, Marie (2001) Housing for the poor? Negotiated housing policyin South Africa Habitat International, 25:303-331

Leibrandt, Murray (2012) Inequality in South Africa and Brazil, can we trustthe numbers? Johannesburg: Center for Development Enterprise

Masombuka, Sipho (2010) “A third of RDP houses are ‘sub-standard’” Sowetan8 September, 2010

Moolla, Raeesa, Kotze, Nico, Block, Liz. (2011) Housing satisfaction andquality of life in RDP houses in Braamfischerville, Soweto: A South Africancase study

Rust, Kecia (2003) No short-cuts: South Africa’s progress in implementing itshousing policy, 1994-2002. Johannesburg: Institute for Housing of SouthernAfrica

Shisaka (2011) Report on a qualitative study on three communities.Johannesburg: Shisaka Development Management Services

Statistics South Africa (2012) Quarterly labor force survey, July-September,2012. Statistics South Africa: Pretoria

down, I screamed until my childrenwere worried about me. I barely hadany furniture to fill the house, but Idid not care. The first thing I boughtmyself was a red dress, I rememberbuying it for R40 (USD5) in Johannes-burg, I wanted to be presentable whenI went to church to thank God.” Sa-rah Charlton, based at the School ofArchitecture and Planning at the Uni-versity of the Witwatersrand inJohannesburg, argues that for manybeneficiaries, the house is more thanthe bricks and mortar that provide shel-ter. “On it, beneficiaries pin immea-surable outcomes, such as dignity,pride and hope for the future. Al-though dignity has no immediate ma-terial benefits, it is integral in devel-oping people’s capabilities, aspirationsand beliefs in themselves which maytranslate into tangible material benefit.This is not to say that the challengesof race, inequality and shelter are un-important, but that these need to beseen within the context of the less tan-gible gains around identity, belong-ing and a sense of self.”

The Department of Human Settle-ments is also currently revisiting itshousing policy, trying to find ways itcan support poor South African house-holds while building sustainable hu-man settlements with limited publicresources. Eighteen years into democ-racy, the Department is asking diffi-cult questions around whether an en-titlement program that was aimed atredressing the ills of the past still ap-plies for new generations of blackSouth Africans. Indeed, it has to ques-tion whether it can afford to providehousing for future generations in thesame way as it has been doing. MarkNapier, director of Urban LandMark—a non-profit organization inPretoria, that aims to make urban landmarkets work for the poor—put it thisway: “If you’ve got new householdformation, coming out of householdsalready living in government housingand people who were born after inde-pendence, do the same issues aroundreparations apply as those of your par-ents who lived under apartheid? But

at the top of officials’ minds,” Napiercontinued, “is their constitutional man-date to provide adequate shelter to all.”It is precisely how policymakers re-solve this dilemma that will shape thenature of low-cost housing interven-tions in South Africa. Amidst the en-titlement debate remains a concern fordeveloping mixed-race and -incomesettlements. According to SarahCharlton, “what we seem to be creat-ing is fruit bowl developments, ratherthan fruit salads or smoothies.” But theneed to build non-racial, mixed-in-come settlements seems to have takena back seat in the Department’s newhousing policy review, where the ma-

jor concern seems to be the fiscal andeconomic sustainability of the program.Of course, achieving fiscal sustain-ability and racial and class integration

are not mutually exclusive. But it re-mains to be seen whether the next gen-eration of South Africa’s housingpolicy for low-income households cre-ates a more diverse and inclusionarysociety.

Phindile still is a domestic workerand leaves her home at 4am everyweekday. But over the seven years shehas had her house, she has saved tobuild five extra rooms for rent to meetan ever-growing demand for housingfrom migrants moving to the city.“Something happened to me when Igot that house,” she said to me oneafternoon in her living room. “Ichanged, I had the courage to becomewhat I wanted.” The extra rental in-come helps her buy clothes for herchildren and pay for school fees.

“I have also built a room for mymother so that she can retire and havea place to stay where her grandchil-dren can play without worrying aboutthe madam.” She smiled as she pouredme a second cup of tea. “No wordscan explain how that feels.” ❏



From the Class Action Fairness Hearing inThompson et al. v. HUD: Declarations of

Congressman Elijah Cummings, Ms. Michelle Green,Ms. Nicole Smith and Ms. Carmen Thompson

We were honored to be seated with many clients, reporters and other onlookers at the final federal court hearing in lateNovember to review and approve the class action settlement in the long-running Thompson v. HUD public housingdesegregation case, which has led to the development of what is probably the most effective housing mobility programcurrently operating in the country. The program—begun under a partial settlement several years ago— has already helpedover 1,800 low-income families move from high-poverty neighborhoods to low-poverty communities, and the enhancedopportunities those moves represent (especially educational quality, neighborhood safety and job access). The new settle-ment increases the size of the program by an additional 2,600 vouchers—along with other regional fair housing provisions.(For more information on the Thompson settlement, go to www.prrac.org/projects/baltimore.php).

The hearing was presided over by Judge Marvin Garbis and by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief Judge for the U.S.District Court for the District of Maryland (who noted the historic importance of the occasion). Eloquent statements weremade in support of the settlement by lawyers for HUD, for the City, for the Housing Authority (and by Paul Graziano,director of the Housing Authority), and, for the plaintiff class, by cooperating attorney Peter Buscemi from Morgan Lewisand Josh Civin from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (supported by cooperating attorneys Andy Freeman from Brown,Goldstein and Levy in Baltimore and Bob Stroup from Levy Ratner in New York City). Several lawyers on both sides of thecase made a special point of praising the perseverance of ACLU attorney Barbara Samuels, and her intense dedication toher clients over the 17-year course of the litigation.

But we were particularly moved by the written Declaration submitted by Congressman Elijah Cummings in support ofthe settlement, and by the personal statements of Michelle Green and Nicole Smith, who addressed the court, as well as thestatement submitted by Carmen Thompson, one of the original named plaintiffs in the case. These statements are printedin their entirety below.

— Philip Tegeler, PRRAC

Declaration ofCongressman Elijah E.Cummings in Support ofSettlement Agreement(Baltimore, Maryland, November15, 2012)

1. Although I make this Declara-tion in my personal rather than offi-cial capacity, I note for the record inthese proceedings that I currently rep-resent the citizens of Maryland’s Sev-enth Congressional District in theUnited States House of Representa-tives. I have had the honor and plea-sure to serve in that capacity since1996. Among other Committee assign-ments, I presently serve as the rankingminority member of the House Com-mittee on Oversight and GovernmentReform, and I also am a senior mem-ber of the House Transportation Com-mittee and a member of the Joint Eco-nomic Committee of the Senate andthe House.

2. I wish to commend the UnitedStates Department of Housing & Ur-ban Development, the City of Balti-more, the Housing Authority of theCity of Baltimore and the PlaintiffClass in this case for reaching a Settle-ment Agreement that can serve as amodel for making real the noble goalsof the Fair Housing Act of 1968,passed in the aftermath of Dr. MartinLuther King, Jr.’s assassination as atribute to the work and legacy of thatgreat civil rights hero.

3. Recognizing that evaluation andapproval of the Settlement Agreementis, properly, within the discretion andauthority of this Honorable Court, Irecognize the value of the SettlementAgreement and, in so expressing myopinion, following the example ofanother civil rights hero—my prede-cessor, the late Honorable ParrenMitchell, who submitted testimony insupport of an earlier Partial ConsentDecree in this case. Like CongressmanMitchell, I recognize that the Balti-

more Housing Mobility Program,which this Settlement Agreement willsupport and continue, should be sup-ported because it permits many poorAfrican Americans to have the samechoices about where to raise their chil-dren as others in the Baltimore Re-gion—a truly empowering consequenceof this litigation.

4. I applauded this Court’s 2005 rul-ing recognizing that a regional ap-proach to fair housing is essential toovercoming the Baltimore Region’slegacy of segregation and the govern-ment policies that contributed to it. ThisSettlement Agreement is a significantstep forward toward remedying the FairHousing Act violations that the Courthas found.

5. Critically, the Settlement Agree-ment will provide needed resources tocontinue the successful and nationallyrecognized Baltimore Housing Mobil-ity Program, launched under the priorPartial Consent Decree in this case.


(THOMPSON: Continued from page 7)

That Program already has assistedmore than 1,800 families who have vol-untarily chosen to live in better neigh-borhoods that offer improved educa-tional and economic opportunities. TheBaltimore Housing Mobility Programprovides these families the assistancethey need to live closer to their jobsand to find neighborhoods with betterschools. I have been advised that eachfamily that chooses to participate re-ceives a Housing Choice Voucher,high-quality housing and credit coun-seling, and support with the transitionto their new neighborhood. In thosenew neighborhoods, participants over-whelmingly report that they feel safer,healthier and more confident about thefuture facing their children. The con-tinued Program under the SettlementAgreement will provide vouchers andhigh-quality counseling to assist up to2,600 additional families to move toCommunities of Opportunity.

6. The Baltimore Housing Mobil-ity Program is a sound investment. Itsbenefits are not limited to families whoparticipate. Rather, the programstrengthens the entire Baltimore Re-gion. Indeed, many families eligibleto participate in the Baltimore Hous-ing Mobility Program are alreadyworking in new jobs as nursing assis-tants, school bus drivers, and in otherjobs critical to our Region’s economy.

7. The inspiring stories of partici-pants in the Baltimore Housing Mo-bility Program echo my own family’sjourney decades ago when we wereable to move from an impoverishedneighborhood, near where the Ravens’stadium has since been built, to a com-munity of far greater opportunity inEdmondson Village in West Balti-more. That move opened my eyes to abetter world. We were the first Blackfamily on our street, and I had the op-portunity to attend integrated and high-quality public schools where I was in-spired to excel. It is not an exaggera-tion to say that the housing moves thatmy family made were critical to thetremendous opportunities I have hadin my life, culminating in my serviceto the people of Maryland in the prac-

tice of law, the Maryland Legislatureand the United States House of Repre-sentatives. It is my hope and belief thatthe Settlement Agreement in this casewill provide similar opportunities tothousands of families.

I, ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS,hereby declare that the foregoing is mytrue act and deed, and I affirm, underpenalty of perjury, that the matters andfacts set forth herein are true and cor-rect to the best of my knowledge, in-formation and belief.

Statement of MichelleGreen (Thompson v.HUD)

My name is Michelle Green and Iam a resident of Baltimore County. Isupport the MBQ program and theThompson settlement because it mayhave saved my sons’ lives. I have fourboys. I understand that for young Blackmales the statistics do not look good.My oldest son and I lived in publichousing in Lexington Terrace. Manyof my family members lived in thesame neighborhood. My sister and Ioften worried about our sons. We un-derstood how difficult it is for decentboys who are trying to do the rightthing to avoid violence in the neigh-borhood.

Unfortunately, our fears were real-ized in the worst way when mynephew was killed while walking homefrom our local convenience store. Therobbers thought that he had money.He never got to finish high school; henever had a chance. I wanted to givemy son a chance to live and a chanceto graduate from high school, whichwas very rare in my neighborhood. TheThompson voucher gave him, and mysons that came later, that chance. Iknew that the MBQ program wouldhelp me to move to a neighborhoodthat was safe. I also heard that youwould not have to wait for 4, 5, or 6years to get a voucher, like Section 8or public housing. I knew that 6 yearscould mean the difference between lifeand death for a young man in Balti-more City.

As soon as I got my voucher, Imoved to a wonderful neighborhoodin Columbia. My boys received awarm welcome and felt really safethere. Thankfully, my two oldest sonsattended middle school and high schoolin Columbia [MD]. They were bothvery active in school sports, and thecoaches, the teachers and the studentsloved them. The day that my oldestson graduated from high school wasthe proudest moment of my life. He isdoing well and is getting licensed tobe a forklift operator. My second sonalso graduated from high school andis planning to apply to colleges. Theyhave made it past the most difficultage and are productive members ofsociety. And they are safe.

Recently, I moved from Columbiato Baltimore County to be closer tothe city to care for my grandmother.But I would never move back to Lex-ington Terrace. My two youngest sonsare doing well in our new neighbor-hood in Catonsville. They get goodgrades, participate in sports, and areboth determined to go to college. Theneighbors love them, and they evenearn extra money by mowing theneighbors’ lawns. I don’t worry aboutmy kids’ safety anymore. I am lessstressed and am able to go to work andeven went back to school. I supportthe Thompson settlement because Ibelieve that it can save lives.

Statement of NicoleSmith (Thompson v.HUD)

My name is Nicole Smith and I sup-port the Thompson v. HUD settlementbecause of the warm welcome that Ireceived in my new neighborhood inHoward County. I grew up in publichousing in Baltimore City and havelived in at least three different publichousing projects (Cherry Hill,Murphy Homes and Westport) since Iwas a child. When I got older, mymom worked hard and was able to pur-chase a house in a struggling neigh-borhood in Baltimore. Despite the factthat she and I were working full-time,



we were unable to make ends meetand the house was foreclosed on.

My family and I signed up for pub-lic housing and Section 8 in 2004. Myname finally came to the top of thepublic housing waiting list in 2007 atthe same time that I learned about theMBQ program through word ofmouth. I knew what to expect in pub-lic housing: drugs, violence, crime andpoor housing. The Thompson voucher,on the other hand, would give me anopportunity to move to neighborhoodsthat I would not otherwise have accessto. I chose the MBQ program becauseit provided a way out for my 11-year-old son and me.

They helped me to clean up mycredit, taught me about budgeting, andtook me on a housing tour where I sawnice houses, lots of green spaces andyoung kids playing outside. My sonand I found a home in Columbia, andI feel like a part of the community here.After moving through the program, Iwas able to get a job working forHoward County schools in their Be-fore and After Care program and wasjust promoted to Assistant Director. Ialso enrolled in Howard County Com-munity College, and I am studyingearly childhood education. I hope tobe able to go on to receive a bachelor’sdegree in order become an elementaryschool teacher.

Not only have I found opportunityand happiness here, but so has my son.In the city, I did not want my son toplay outside, he didn’t have manyfriends, and he struggled in school.Here, he is doing very well in schooland our neighbors are welcoming—often picking him up after school whileI’m working and arranging play datesand carpools. On his birthday, for thefirst time in his life, I was able to givehim a birthday party at a local park.So many kids and parents came fromthe neighborhood and from his schoolto show their support for him. I sup-port the settlement because other kidsdeserve to have the love and supportthat my son and I have.

Statement of CarmenThompson (Thompson v.HUD)

My name is Carmen Thompson. Isupport the Thompson v. HUD settle-ment and I am proud to have my namerepresent the African-American resi-dents of public housing in BaltimoreCity. As a former resident of Lex-ington Terrace, I know the constantstress and hardship that families expe-rienced while living there. I decidedto do something when my then 7-year-old son walked up to the gate outside

of our high-rise apartment and said,"Mom, I feel like I'm in jail." I knewthat something needed to change so Igot involved in different organizationsthat were trying to make a differencefor the residents of public housing. Weinvestigated what it was like for peoplewho lived in impacted areas. I person-ally went door-to-door talking to fam-ily after family that had lost a sense ofhope because their living conditionswere so awful. I could relate to it be-cause my son and I were living in thesame conditions. Thompson has alreadyhelped to solve some of these prob-lems for many former residents and itis important that we continue.

Thankfully, I was able to movefrom Lexington Terrace right beforethey demolished it. I've been livingin a nice apartment for many years nowand it really feels like home. It is verypeaceful and quiet. I am thankful forthis and am glad that I was able to helpfamilies attain a better living situation,have access to better schools, and ulti-mately live a better life. After 15years, I am relieved that we were fi-nally able to reach a settlement thatwill allow many other families to moveto opportunity areas. And thank youto the Court for seeing this processthrough to the end. ❏


cause lawmakers recognized that firmsshould not be allowed to use their dis-proportionate power to intimidateworkers. But the penalties and pro-cesses under the NLRA are far weaker.If employers are found to have vio-lated the law, they must reinstate anyterminated employees and providethem with back pay, normally after alengthy and arduous process of en-forcement. And under the NLRA,there is extremely limited opportunityfor discovery and no jury trial. Facedwith the prospect of having to negoti-ate substantial wage and benefit in-creases with a union, businesses havea strong financial incentive to fire or-ganizing employees and risk paying the

penalties as a cost of doing business.Labor lawyer Thomas Geogheganwrites in his 1991 book, Which SideAre You On?: “An employer whodidn’t break the law would have to bewhat economists call an ‘irrationalfirm.’”

Amending the CivilRights Act for LaborOrganizing

The central thesis of our new book,Why Labor Organizing Should Be aCivil Right, is that the Civil Rights Actshould be amended to add protectionfor employees seeking to organize aunion. Just as it is illegal to fire some-one for race or gender or national ori-

gin or religion, it would be illegal un-der the Civil Rights Act to fire some-one for trying to organize or join aunion.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil RightsAct (which now prohibits discrimina-tion based on race, gender, religion andother factors from wrongful termina-tion and other forms of employmentdiscrimination) would be amended toprohibit discrimination against work-ers who are attempting to organize alabor union, making them eligible notonly for back pay but for compensa-tory and punitive damages as well. (Al-ternatively, a stand-alone bill could beoffered that would have the effect ofadding Title VII-type protections forlabor organizing without literally

Adding the right toorganize to the CivilRights Act enhances it.

10 • Poverty & Race • Vol. 22, No. 1 • January/Februrary 2013


amending the Civil Rights Act.)We argue that for labor suits under

the Civil Rights Act, procedures simi-lar to those of the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission (EEOC)should be followed, but the NationalLabor Relations Board should continueto administer disputes. This approachwould combine a process that hasproved effective with an agency thatis finely attuned to the nuances of la-bor law through its more than 75 yearsof experience handling labor disputes.

Significantly, Title VII remediesfor unlawful discharge of unionizingworkers would likely be an even moreeffective deterrent than they have beenfor racial and gender discrimination,because unlawfully discharged work-ers trying to form a union would havean important financial reservoir notavailable to victims of race and gen-der bias. American labor unions havea total annual income that runs in thebillions of dollars. By contrast, civilrights and women’s organizations havemuch smaller financial bases on whichto draw, so most women and peopleof color must rely on contingency law-yers.

Conceivably, writing labor orga-nizing protections into the Civil RightsAct could also spawn a cultural shiftin employer behavior. Employers whoare found guilty of racial or genderdiscrimination are today seen to havedone something shameful, a seismicshift from the days when business rou-tinely espoused racist and chauvinisticattitudes. Today, there is no lucrativeindustry to aid employers in thwart-ing civil rights laws, as there is to keepunions out. Instead, the opposite isfound, where employers spend billionsof dollars a year on human resourcedepartments in part to ensure that allemployees understand the require-ments of Title VII.

By contrast, managers are unapolo-getic about wanting to silence the voiceof workers. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott,for example, famously said—as quotedby Thomas Frank in the Nov. 19,2008 Wall Street Journal: “We likedriving the car and we’re not going to

give the steering wheel to anybody butus.” Shifting labor organizing protec-tions to civil rights legislation could,over time, bring about a cultural shiftin which the country sees corporationsthat fire employees for trying to forma union, join the middle class, and havea say in the workplace, as morally sus-pect—as they already are seen in Eu-rope.

Advantages to the CivilRights Approach

Conceptually, an amendment to theCivil Rights Act would not break newground, as it is already illegal underthe NLRA to fire someone for orga-nizing. But amending the Civil RightsAct to protect union organizing would

offer two fundamental advantages.First, it would put teeth into the exist-ing NLRA prohibition by applying thefull force of Civil Rights penalties andprocedures to businesses that break thelaw. Today, labor leaders note, “theright to form a union is the only le-gally guaranteed right that Americansare afraid to exercise” (Steven Green-house in the June 25, 1998 New YorkTimes). Amending the Civil RightsAct would provide a far more effec-tive deterrent to lawbreaking than thecurrent statute recognizing the theo-retical right to organize as authentic.

The second advantage to this ap-proach lies in its potential to break along-standing political logjam sur-rounding labor law reform. Amend-ing the Civil Rights Act rather thanthe NLRA would, for the broaderAmerican public, help elevate the de-bate from the obscure confines of la-bor law to the higher arena of civilrights, which Americans readily un-derstand. Whereas labor law is seenby many as a body of technical rulesgoverning relations between two setsof “special interests”—business andlabor—Americans understand the prin-

ciple of nondiscrimination as an issueof fundamental fairness. Employmentrights have long been considered civilrights, and there is no reason to ex-clude labor rights from this formula-tion. Framing labor organizing as acivil right could provide a new para-digm that might fundamentally alterthe political landscape, breaking thedeadlock over reform.

Since passage of the anti-labor La-bor–Management Relations Act in the1940s (known as the Taft-HartleyAct), organized labor has had fourmajor chances to reform labor laws inorder to level the playing field forworkers. Each time that Democratshave controlled the presidency andboth houses in Congress they havesought to alter labor law, and each timethey have failed. Under LyndonJohnson, Democrats fell short in aSenate effort to modify Taft-Hartley.Under Jimmy Carter, labor law reformthat would have enhanced penalties forunfair labor practices failed by twovotes in a Democratically-controlledSenate. During Bill Clinton’s firstterm, legislation to outlaw the perma-nent replacement of strikers stalled.And under Barack Obama, the Em-ployee Free Choice Act (EFCA) tostiffen penalties for employer abusesand allow a majority of employees toauthorize union representation through“card check” procedures was not evenput to a formal vote in the Senate.

The fundamental problem with theseefforts was that labor is caught in apolitical box. In order to achieve re-form, labor needs political power,which requires expanding union mem-bership; but in order to grow, unionsneed labor law reform. As HarvardLaw Professor Paul C. Weiler notedmore than a decade ago, in the Sept.4, 1999 Wall Street Journal, “No partof American law in the last 50 yearshas been less amenable to reform thanlabor law.” The Civil Rights strategywould offer a fresh approach. Repub-lican-controlled bodies of Congress areunlikely to support efforts tostrengthen labor under any circum-stances, but progressives need to be-gin developing a new strategy now sothat when they do regain full political


Strengthening laborcan advance the largerobjectives of the CivilRights Act itself.


power, they do not miss a fifth chanceto revitalize labor.

Recent developments suggest thatlabor may have the public on its side.Following the 2010 elections, Repub-lican governors in Wisconsin, Ohio,Indiana and elsewhere took what hadprimarily been an assault on privatesector collective bargaining rights tothe public sector, which had previouslyfaced a more favorable climate. Theseattacks on public sector collective bar-gaining prominently raised fundamen-tal issues about the role of labor inAmerican society and energized manyprogressives who had taken the rightof employees to band together collec-tively for granted. Indeed, recent poll-ing suggests that while the opinions ofAmericans are mixed on unions, theystrongly believe, by margins of twoto one, and even three to one, in thebasic right of collective bargaining. InNovember 2011, the people of Ohiooverwhelmingly voted to repeal ananti-union law that restricted publicemployee collective bargaining rights.

Moreover, the attack on public sec-tor unions for receiving more gener-ous pension and health benefits thanprivate sector workers raises the pos-sibility of a different discussion: Ratherthan pursuing a race to the bottom,where the diminishing benefits ofnonunionized private employees areused as a club against unionized pub-lic employees, why not take steps tostrengthen private sector unionization,so that private sector employees canenjoy the same level of benefits asthose enjoyed by those employed inthe public sector?

The Civil Rights Act as theAppropriate Vehicle

When we outlined our proposal inan op-ed in the February 29, 2012 NewYork Times, the AFL-CIO’s presidentRich Trumka endorsed the idea andconservative pundit Ann Coulter de-nounced it on Fox News on March 12,2012. In a classic divide-and-conquerstrategy, Coulter argued that “Civilrights is for blacks.... Now they[Democrats] want to call everything a

civil right, whether it’s women or im-migrants, and now, labor unions?!”

We believe that the Civil Rights Actis the right vehicle for protecting thosetrying to organize a union, for threedistinct reasons: (1) labor organizingis a basic human right, which is boundup with an important democratic rightof association; (2) strengthening la-bor advances the values and interestsof the Civil Rights Movement by pro-moting dignity and equality, particu-larly for people of color; (3) strongerunions can enhance existing protec-tions against discrimination by race,gender, national origin and religion byreducing employer discretion and en-hancing processes for redress.

Labor organizing is connected tothe fundamental constitutional right ofassociation that is recognized as partof the First Amendment. In a democ-racy, individuals have a right to jointogether with others to promote theirinterests and values. Just as the origi-nal Civil Rights Act extended the Four-teenth Amendment’s prohibitionagainst government discrimination toapply to private-sector employers, add-ing anti-discrimination protection forlabor organizing extends a FirstAmendment right against governmentrestraint of free association to applyto private-sector employers. Ofcourse, Congress already extended as-sociation rights to the private sectorwhen it passed the 1935 NLRA recog-nizing the “right to self-organization.”Including labor protections in the CivilRights Act, therefore, does not breaknew ground conceptually, but it doesprovide workers with a much betterway to hold accountable employerswho violate their rights.

Some may believe that civil rightslaws should only protect individualsfrom discrimination based on immu-table factors such as race, national ori-gin and gender. However, the Civil

Rights Act was never limited to theseimmutable characteristics. The 1964act itself included protection againstdiscrimination based on religion, whichis a mutable characteristic. A Chris-tian who converts to Islam, for ex-ample, is protected against anemployer’s religious discrimination;the employer cannot defend discrimi-nation on the basis that the employeechose to convert. A survey of civilrights legislation shows that such lawshave incrementally been extended toprohibit discrimination based on be-havioral factors such as pregnancy,prior criminal conviction, whistleblowing, indebtedness or bankruptcy.

Significantly, anti-discriminationlaws apply even when they could hurtthe profitability of a company. In theearly days of civil rights law, for ex-ample, law firms were not allowed tojustify discrimination against blackattorneys based on evidence that whiteclients would not want to work withthem. The principle already estab-lished under the NLRA and UN Dec-laration of Human Rights suggests that,even if unions cut into corporate prof-its, employers cannot abuse their eco-nomic power by firing employees fortrying to organize.

Moreover, strengthening labor canadvance the larger objectives of theCivil Rights Act itself: promotinggreater dignity and equality, particu-larly for people of color. The laborand civil rights movements, while notalways allied, are fundamentally boundby similar values, interests, tactics andenemies. Labor recognizes that indi-viduals should be treated with de-cency, a core belief of the Civil RightsMovement; their emphasis on a sharedhumanity explains why labor leadersand civil rights advocates refer to oneanother as brothers and sisters.

Not only do the movements sharesimilar values, King recognized thatthey have common interests. As a pre-dominantly working people, blacks hadmuch to gain from a stronger unionmovement. Julian Bond, as chairmanof the National Association for the Ad-vancement of Colored People, notedin a 2005 address that minorities are

12 • Poverty & Race • Vol. 22, No. 1 • January/Februrary 2013


disproportionately represented in or-ganized labor; that African Americanswho are members of unions earn 35%more than nonunionized black people;and that black Americans are morelikely than whites to want to joinunions. In this way, amending theCivil Rights Act to protect workerstrying to organize a union would notdiminish the Act’s commitment to ra-cial equality; it would extend and af-firm that commitment in new ways.

The civil rights and labor move-ments have also used similar tactics,like civil disobedience, sit-ins andpicket lines. And both movementsfaced a common source of resistance.It is no accident that the eleven statesthat today are most resistant to unionsand have the lowest union density ratesare all states that were previously gov-erned by Jim Crow. Historical evi-dence is clear that the anti-union “rightto work” movement was originallyaimed at weakening labor’s ability tofight against racial segregation.

Finally, stronger unions, by protect-ing employees against arbitrary dis-missals in general, provide an addi-tional shield against the type of racialand gender discrimination that is for-bidden by the Civil Rights Act. Mostemployees currently work “at-will”:They can be fired for “good cause, badcause, or no cause” (the standard defi-nition of “at-will employment”).Unions work to remove arbitrary ter-minations and the at-will employmentsystem from the workplace, and limitthe type of employer discretion thatallows discrimination to take place.

Unions also put procedures in place toaddress grievances, providing an em-ployee with the possibility of fasterrelief should she suffer from discrimi-nation. In this way, adding the rightto organize to the Civil Rights Act doesnot distract from the original focus ofthe Act, but rather enhances it throughinternal non-governmental proceduresthat can remedy racial discriminationin the workplace in a faster and moreefficient manner than litigation.

A Politically Viable Idea?

Labor law reform has been a verytough sell in the United States, butthere are considerable political advan-tages to framing the right to organizeas a matter of moral values rather thana battle of raw “interests” (labor ver-sus management); plus the advantagesof having a fight over “anti-discrimi-

Don’t forgetto send us items

for ourResourcesSection.

In Memphis, MartinLuther King understoodthat the fate of thelabor movement and thecivil rights communitywere inextricablybound.

nation law” rather than “labor law.”The rhetoric of “rights” is very

powerful in American political dis-course. Indeed, when asked to iden-tify government’s most importantrole, 59% say it is to protect individualrights and liberty. “Civil rights” arealready a part of the conversationabout labor, but, unfortunately, it hasbeen anti-labor forces who employ therhetoric and symbols of civil rightsagainst workers. The Employee FreeChoice Act to improve labor lawsfailed in part on the argument thatworkers had a right to a secret ballot.Likewise, for years, business has ap-propriated the slogan “right to work”to signify state legislation that allowsemployees to benefit from collectivebargaining agreements without paying

their fair share of dues—a tactic thatprevailed recently even in the laborstronghold of Michigan. And the "Em-ployee Rights Act," which is the Re-publican version of labor law reform,uses the language of civil rights againstworkers.

Belatedly, union leaders are begin-ning to take back the rhetoric of rights,and the AFL-CIO has sponsored ral-lies to protest illegal firings, likeningthe campaign, as reported by StevenGreenhouse in his New York Times ar-ticle cited above, to “a new civil rightsmovement.” Connecting labor to theCivil Rights Movement is especiallyvital to making the issue easier to un-derstand for young people, who maynot personally know any friends orfamily members who are part of orga-nized labor.

Labor law has become increasinglycomplex and technical, and is under-stood by few beyond its practitioners.As a civil right, labor law becomesalmost intuitively understandable, andits importance becomes easy to com-municate to those outside the field.Whereas labor law reform does notexcite people, civil rights do. ThomasGeoghegan writes in Which Side AreYou On?: “If we only thought of the[NLRA] as a civil rights law, insteadof a labor law, then maybe liberalswould wake up and do something.”

Americans long to be part of some-thing larger than themselves, and justas promoters of equal educational op-portunity and a cleaner environmenthave characterized their causes as partof this generation’s Civil RightsMovement, so labor organizing—which shares with the Civil RightsMovement the basic quest for humandignity—has a very strong claim to thatmantle. In Memphis, Martin LutherKing understood that the fate of thelabor movement and the civil rightscommunity were inextricably bound.Now is the time to write the protec-tion of organized labor into the CivilRights Act itself.❏



Commentaries on the Kahlenberg-Marvit Article

Theodore M. ShawProfessor of Professional Practice, Columbia Law School, [email protected]

Richard Kahlenberg’s and MosheMarvit’s précis of their book left mewith deeply conflicted feelings and re-actions. It is provocative and thought-worthy in a manner that requires moretime and greater reflection. Consequen-tially, my initial reactions may not sur-vive further reflection; still, they arestrong enough that they demand articu-lation, if only because I cannot get towhere Kahlenberg and Marvit (K&M)are without jumping significant hurdlesand reordering long-held principles andbeliefs. My own views of class and raceinvite a “gut rush” acceptance ofK&M’s thesis; yet I am left with a pro-

found discomfort that defies my abil-ity to organize adequately intothoughts.

The invocation of Dr. Martin LutherKing’s last campaign, grounded in anunderstanding of historical and con-temporary relationship between classand race, and of the need to adopt thepolitics of a movement for racial andeconomic justice, exerts a powerfullyseductive force on progressives. Dr.King did not want to go to Memphis,but the strike by black sanitation work-ers appealed to his core beliefs in a waythat coincided with his development asa leader that took him beyond the

struggle against racial segregation anddiscrimination. By 1968, King couldno longer stay silent about the Viet-nam War and American militarism.Nor could he pursue his dream of ajust society without addressing eco-nomic inequality, not only for blackAmericans whose struggle against ra-cial discrimination had left them eco-nomically disadvantaged, but for allAmericans. King was charting new ter-ritory, not because no American hadchallenged economic injustice beforehim, or even because no African-American leader had done so. King’sposition as the pre-eminent and elo-quent Civil Rights Movement spokes-person, as Nobel Peace Prize laureate,and as an international human rightsadvocate, uniquely positioned him tochallenge the conscience of America,even if it was by no means certain thatif he had lived his campaign againstpoverty would have succeeded. Indeed,it is the unfinished nature of his life’swork that invites 21st Century advo-cates and activists from varying ideo-logical backgrounds to claim him.Right-wing conservatives embracetheir version of Dr. King in support ofa color-blind paradigm that would ren-der illegal all conscious efforts to vol-untarily address systemic vestiges ofslavery and Jim Crow segregation.Progressives invoke King in their questto awaken the Nation to the dangersand the injustice of the yawning chasmbetween “the 99%” and working- andmiddle-class Americans.

K&M correctly point to the com-plex role of labor unions during theera of the Civil Rights Movement.Labor unions were, in some instances,some of the biggest obstacles to equalemployment opportunity. On the na-tional level, however, labor becamesome of the staunchest allies of theCivil Rights Movement. Today, pub-

Ross EisenbreyVice President, Econmoic Policy Institute, [email protected]

I disagree with a fundamentalpremise of the article. The premise isthat the Civil Rights Act has so im-proved the status of black Americansthat we should use the same legal modelto improve the status of workers. Butas the authors note, Dr. King did notaccept that legal rights, even backedby strong sanctions, are enough. Wehave to judge the success of the CivilRights Act with a yardstick that in-cludes economic progress: “Peoplemust not only have the right to sit at alunch counter, but also the right to af-ford a hamburger.”

However great the improvementsfor African Americans have been in le-gal rights and social relations, the eco-nomic gains have been less impressive:

• In January 1966, the ratio of blackmedian family income to whitemedian family income was 60%.Forty-five years later, in January2011, the ratio was virtually un-changed: 63%.

• The ratio of median household

wealth among blacks and whites hasworsened over the past three de-cades, falling from a tiny 6.6% in1983 to an even tinier 5.0% in2010. Even in absolute terms, me-dian black household wealth is lesstoday than in 1983.

• The homeownership rate for blackfamilies was 45% in 2011, essen-tially unchanged since 1975, thefirst year for which we have racialdata.

• And by some measures, residentialsegregation is no less today than itwas in 1950.

I support much stronger sanctionsfor employer violations of employeerights to organize, to bargain collec-tively, and to strike. But the economicresults obtained from the Civil RightsAct make me skeptical that the authorshave found a silver bullet. I believemuch more powerful tools will be nec-essary to restore these rights and makethem as effective as they were in the1940s and 1950s. ❏


(SHAW: Cont. from page 13)

lic employee unions represent a dispro-portionate number of black and brownpeople in the labor force, and unionsin general have largely aligned theirinterests with those of people of color.This alignment is clearly visible in par-tisan politics at the state and local level,with the Republican Party seen as theparty of white people and the wealthy,and the Democrats viewed as the partyof “minorities” and labor. And ofcourse, regardless of how much of 21stCentury economic polarization is at-tributable to the weakened position ofAmerican labor unions, K&M cor-rectly point to the assault on labor andthe right to organize as an importantbattleground between conservativesand progressives. The right of work-

ers to unionize is as old as the labormovement in America; late 19th andearly 20th Century America far sur-passes the bitter political debates thatcharacterize our time. Nonetheless,contemporary assaults on the right toorganize pose profound threats to thewell-being of working- and middle-class people in the United States, andraise important civil and human rightsissues.

My discomfort with K&M is notwith their belief that the right of laborto organize should be recognized as acivil right. My discomfort stems froma sense that while K&M pay lip ser-vice to the fact that “more work surelyneeds to be done,” their sense that “thetrajectory on race is generally pointedin the right direction” may give moreground to those who are arguing that

in the age of Obama we have enteredinto a “post-racial” America. At a timewhen conscious efforts to address stub-born, intractable and systemic racialinequality for many African Americansand other people of color are underassault from the forces of “color-blind-ness,” we cannot let up. Kahlenbergfor some time has promoted the no-tion of class-conscious affirmative ac-tion or diversity efforts as a responseto the assault on race-conscious affir-mative action and diversity efforts.While I suffer no illusions about thefact that many, if not most,progressives have abandoned and fledthe terminology of “affirmative ac-tion,” or the facts about the directionof the Supreme Court as presently con-stituted, and while as a matter of prin-ciple I independently believe in the im-

Julius GetmanProfessor of Law, Univ. of Texas School of Law, [email protected]

It is time to amend the NationalLabor Relations Act. It has failed tomeet the stated statutory goal of “en-couraging the practice and procedureof collective bargaining,” and it hasfailed to protect the right of employ-ees to unionize. Kahlenberg andMarvit recognize the law’s weaknessand suggest strengthening it by bring-ing the right to organize under the CivilRights Act. This would have the ben-eficial effect of increasing penaltiesimposed on employers who dischargeor otherwise penalize union support-ers. They suggest that the NationalLabor Relations Board administer thenew approach, describing the Boardas “an agency that is finely attuned tothe nuances of labor law through itsmore than 75 years of experience han-dling labor disputes.”

Kahlenberg and Marvit anticipatea cultural change occurring once thisnew approach is tried. They see theirproposed change in the law as a steptowards making anti-union discrimi-nation as culturally despised as racism.If this occurs, employers might stopopposing unions so fiercely. “Conceiv-ably, writing labor organizing protec-tions into the Civil Rights Act could

also spawn a cultural shift in employerbehavior. Employers who are foundguilty of racial or gender discrimina-tion are today seen to have done some-thing shameful,” they write.

I favor their proposal because itwould grant significant protection toemployees who are now legally vul-nerable to economic devastation. I donot, however, see this as somethinglikely to have a major effect on orga-nizing. It would not eliminate the ad-vantages that employers now have incampaigning against unions, such asthe right to make captive audiencespeeches and to keep union organizersoff their premises. It is unlikely to al-ter the pro-employer bias of the courts.Nor would it be wise for unions andtheir supporters to anticipate this lawleading to “a cultural shift in employerbehavior.”

I think that the authors are too kindto the NLRB. It would, for example,have been extremely difficult for ob-servers to note any deep understand-ing of nuances in the decisions of theBush Board. If Romney had won,there is reason to believe that the Boardwould have become openly and con-sistently anti-union and anti-worker.

Finding a way to make the Board lessof a political battleground would it-self be a significant reform.

A cultural shift in attitudes towardsunions would be highly desirable. I donot believe that it can be achieved toany significant extent by using the lan-guage or applying the law of employ-ment discrimination. It will requiremore sweeping changes in the law, suchas prohibiting the hiring of permanentreplacements in strikes and eliminat-ing or reducing the secondary boycottprohibitions. It will also requirechanges in the labor movement, suchas more consistent mobilizing of therank-and-file, continuing aggressivestruggle against the “malefactors ofgreat wealth” (think Walmart andSheldon Adelson), and making com-mon cause with other progressivemovements. There is reason to behopeful that needed changes are in facttaking place, but the process is slowand the obstacles formidable.

Despite my criticisms, the authorsare to be commended for stimulatingdiscussion about needed changes in ourdysfunctional labor laws. ❏



portance and the correctness of address-ing class-based inequality, I refuse tosurrender to the intellectual or legalequation of race-conscious affirmativeaction and racism. I support, as doesKahlenberg, class-based affirmativeaction, but I refuse to cede the groundhe has ceded on issues of race. Nor doI believe that the tremendous progressto which he and Marvit rightly pointis reason to think that we need to shiftour focus to a greater degree on issuesof economic inequality. We are pres-ently facing an assault on diversity ef-forts in admission to selective institu-tions of higher education, an avenuethat has desegregated leadership and

governance in America for the last 35years. We face an assault on the con-stitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.The Fair Housing Act is under assault,and indeed the underpinnings of TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,which K&M venerate so dearly, are inthe crosshairs of radical conservativeswhose race project since the days ofthe Warren Court has been to undo itsjurisprudence.

It is this reality that leads me to mycore concern with K&M’s proposal.Civil rights legislation has been suc-cessful, and many Americans havecome to an understanding of its im-portance they once did not have. None-

theless, since the enactment of TitleVII, which K&M propose to amend,and of The Voting Rights Act of 1965,and of the Fair Housing Act of 1968(which shares the standard known as“the effects test” with Title VII, de-spised by radical conservatives), thesestatutes have never been completelysafe. They have been under assault bythe progenitors of the radical right-wing race project. They have beenopened for amendment only when ne-cessity demanded it and when the poli-tics of the moment allowed or de-manded it. Opening Title VII foramendment two years after the Su-preme Court’s decision in Ricci, witha House of Representatives in controlof radical conservatives, is a riskyproposition at best.

Moreover, the amendment to TitleVII proposed by K&M would changethe nature of a long-existing statute.Even granting their “religion” retortto the “immutable characteristics” ar-gument some might pose to K&M,there is another distinction their pro-posal would create. Whether it is race,gender, national origin or religion,these are all aspects of who and whatwe are. (Yes, arguably one can changereligion, but I doubt that takes religionout of the “who or what we are” cat-egory.) Organizing is “what we do.”In other words, to borrow terminol-ogy from a Supreme Court decision,the protected class to be added to TitleVII is arguably “analytically distinct”from those already in the statute. Thatdoes not mean the classification couldnot be protected in independent legis-lation; it may pose a question of “fit.”

In sum, I support the effort to cre-ate the right of labor to organize as acivil right. I support the effort to bringhuman rights norms to the UnitedStates that would, among other things,protect the right of labor to organize.For tactical as well as conceptual rea-sons, I do not support opening TitleVII at this time to rest protection ofthe right of labor to organize there. Ibelieve that independent legislation isa better path toward the ends K&Mseek. ❏

Leo W. GerardInternational President, United Steelworkers, [email protected]

Unions put power in the hands ofworking people, just as the vote putpower in the hands of black people.Immediately after President AbrahamLincoln emancipated the slaves,former slave-holders—that is, thewealthy of the Confederacy—con-spired to prevent black people fromexercising their franchise, to preventthem from wielding the power of thevote to improve their lives. Immedi-ately after the Wagner Act was passedin 1935, right-wing politicians, at thebehest of robber barons, conspired toprevent working people from exercis-ing the right to organize enshrined inthe law, a right that enabled workingpeople to improve their lives.

Over the years, those intent on de-nying black people their human rightsdevised numerous ways to obstructthem from voting, including polltaxes, literacy tests and terrorizationby the KKK. They lynched blackpeople to repress an entire race. Theylynched union organizers to repress apowerful idea. The great Rev. MartinLuther King embraced unionization asa method for all working people toensure that they received a just por-tion of the profits derived from thefruit of their labor. On the day he died,he had supported striking Memphissanitation workers who carried signs

that said, “I AM A MAN.”Inherent in manhood—in person-

hood—is self-determination. For self-determination, a person must have theability to exercise the right to vote.And for self-determination, peoplemust have the ability to support them-selves and their families. In recentyears, right-wingers have once againopenly and actively sought to deny thevote to whole categories of people, in-cluding the poor and black people, bydemanding specific photo identifica-tion at polling places. And they’vepassed union suppression laws in stateafter state.

In 1944, President Franklin DelanoRoosevelt proposed a second Bill ofRights, what he called an EconomicBill of Rights. He said: “We cannotbe content, no matter how high thatgeneral standard of living may be, ifsome fraction of our people—whetherit be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.” Unfortunately,this great proposal was one he did notlive to achieve. Now, collective bar-gaining is among the only methodsworking people can use to assure theireconomic rights. Like voting rights,the right to unionize should be strength-ened, not weakened. ❏


(COMMENTARIES: Cont. from page 15)

Using Dr. King as their vehicle,Kahlenberg and Marvit write on howLabor and Civil Rights are inter-twined, and they note the ascension ofcivil rights and decline of labor rightssince the 1960s.

On a tactical level, our partners inthe Civil Rights Movement tell me thatthey would be opposed to opening theCivil Rights Act, but would be sup-portive of adding private right of ac-tion to their existing support for col-lective action in the workplace.

Any such initiative will be the tar-get of the same sustained U.S. Cham-ber of Commerce campaign which hasrolled back worker rights, our stan-dard of living and the U.S. economy.In the U.S., our collective bargainingframework has been systematicallydestroyed by the Chamber’s 40-yearcampaign, resulting in flat real wagesfor 30 years.

This frame is correct for the UnitedStates, but not globally. In Brazil,South Korea and South Africa, we’veseen the rise of strong labor movementslinked to political movements from theashes of military dictatorships or evenworse, apartheid. Their success shouldembolden us to see the possibilities ofa resurgent movement linking work-

ers’ rights to other economic justiceand democracy issues.

Let’s note that the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, led by Speaker Pelosi,overwhelmingly passed the EmployeeFree Choice Act. In the U.S. Senate,we had a majority as well, but the ex-pansion of filibuster rules preventedeven debate not only on EmployeeFree Choice but nearly every majorpiece of legislation passed by the Housein the last Congress. Richard andMoshe dismiss Free Choice too quicklyand incorrectly.

Yes, in 2013 we must broaden ourapproach to workers’ rights in manyways, and speak to 100 million U.S.working women and men, currentlywith no effective bargaining or orga-nizing rights. We should include en-couragement for new forms of collec-tive action as well as the private rightof action.

Our democracy is corrupted. Moneyis not speech. Corporations are notpeople. Our path to change must relyon massive movement-building, unit-ing economic justice and democracy.

[Pls. if you have feedback you’dlike to get to him, send it to me—[email protected]—and I’ll passall such on to him—CH] ❏

Larry CohenPresident, Communication Workers of America

Sheryll CashinProfessor of Law, Georgetown Law Center, [email protected]

I will leave it to others more expertthan me to comment on the substan-tive merits of the proposal to amendthe Civil Rights Act put forth by Ri-chard Kahlenberg and Moshe Marvit.I will say this: They are surely on tosomething important, perhaps transfor-mative. I agree with them and Dr.King that there is a profound congru-ence between the goals of the labormovement and the demand for univer-sal human dignity that animated theCivil Rights Movement. The forgot-ten march, The Poor People’s Cam-

paign of 1968, which King envisionedbut did not live to see to fruition, em-bodied this convergence. The Cam-paign would bring blacks, Chicanos,Native Americans and rural whitesfrom invisible hamlets of poverty tooccupy the National Mall in a tent citythat lasted six weeks. As King imag-ined it, this multiracial coalition unitedby economic oppression would kick-start the second phase of the Move-ment. Mere civil rights, the ability tosit at any lunch counter, were irrel-evant without economic means, and so

he conceived of a civilly disobedientcampaign to put pressure on nationalleaders to adopt an “economic bill ofrights.”

The Campaign is forgotten largelybecause it was unsuccessful and endedbadly, with a forced eviction by po-lice. Sound familiar? It is ironic thatKahlenberg and Marvit seek to lever-age the success of the Civil Rights Actin order to improve the political sa-liency of the labor movement. Theyacknowledge, as they must, that poli-tics is currently set against their pro-posal, just as politics is currently setagainst common sense. What is miss-ing from most progressive issue briefsis a strategic plan for altering the po-litical landscape in order to make pro-gressive policy choices possible. Thereal unfinished business of the CivilRights Movement is completing theBeloved Community that King imag-ined. In 1956, when the Movementwas in its infancy, King delivered aspeech entitled, “Facing the Challengeof a New Age.” He expounded on theultimate ends of the civil rights revo-lution that Rosa Parks had ignited ayear before. The end of the Movementwas not the rights of Negroes per sebut reconciliation and the creation ofthe Beloved Community.

In pragmatic terms for progressivestoday, that means bringing moreworking-class whites into their multi-racial tent. While pundits and armchairanalysts lecture Republicans about de-mographics and its Latino problem, theGOP is able to adopt “right-to-work”laws in states like Michigan and Indi-ana in part because the party has be-come a cultural home for blue- collarworkingmen. Without a multiracialmajority that consistently gets to 55%in elections and policy battles, there islittle chance of enacting sound poli-cies that might promote collective bar-gaining, much less correct the under-lying structures that create racial andeconomic inequality. In the case of


anti-democratic measures like super-majority requirements to break a fili-buster in the U.S., even more cross-racial political cohesion is required. Wecan begin to reconcile, to move pastracial resentments, and create a poli-tics of economic fairness by being quiteintentional in our choice of policies andlanguage. Our best hope for a sanerpolitics is a language based upon com-mon harms and the common weal. Thebest place to start in building multira-cial, multi-class coalitions for the com-mon good is with numerous faith-basedcoalitions that are already working inscores of communities, often in a bi-

partisan manner. Elsewhere, I havewritten about this wonderful, righteouswork. (See Cashin, “Shall We Over-come? Transcending Race, Class andIdeology Through Interest Conver-gence,” 79 St. John’s L. Rev. 253-91(2005)).

Throughout American history, eco-nomic elites used racial categories andracism to drive a wedge between work-ing-class whites and people of colorthey might ally with. In the colonialera, indentured servitude gave way towhite freedom and black slavery, sothat white servants no longer had in-centive to join blacks in revolt, as they

did in Bacon’s Rebellion. In the late-19th Century, Jim Crow laws prolif-erated when a biracial farmers’ alli-ance threatened to change unfair finan-cial policies imposed by elites. Andthe GOP devised a cynical, race-codedSouthern strategy that broke up themultiracial alliance that made the NewDeal possible. Given this history andits current manifestations, intentionalefforts are sorely needed to begin torebuild trust among “we the people”and to fully realize the Beloved Com-munity. ❏

We’ve always been a nation builton the simple belief that everyone de-serves equal access to economic oppor-tunity and a path to the Americandream. That no matter who you are orwhere you are from—immigrant ornative-born—each of us should have afair shot to achieve our dreams and carefor our families. Today, that fair shot,that path to economic opportunity, isunder attack by a group of elites seek-ing to enrich themselves at the expenseof the rest of us.

And one of the biggest threats to eco-nomic opportunity is the coordinatedeffort to strip Americans of their rightto collectively bargain for fair wagesand benefits and a better life for theirfamilies and communities. Considerthis: Between 1973 and 2007, unionmembership in the private sectordropped from more than 34% to 8%.During that time, wage inequality inthe private sector increased by morethan 40%. As we saw in Michigan, ex-tremist politicians continue to ramthrough policies dubbed “right-to-work" which instead choke the abilityof unions to act effectively. These so-called “right-to-work” laws have de-pressed wages and suppressed the abil-ity of workers to collectively bargain.Today, when workers seek to joinunions, 25% of employers fire at leastone pro-union worker. And workers

are routinely harassed, intimidated andthreatened for trying to form or join aunion.

We know that workers who belongto unions earn 28% more than non-union workers; nearly 87% of unionworkers have guaranteed pensions; and84% of union workers have jobs thatprovide health insurance benefits. Backwhen more than one-third of Ameri-cans belonged to unions, we were ableto set wage-and-benefit standards forentire industries—for union and non-union workers alike.

This attack on the fundamental rightof workers to freely join unions notonly threatens economic opportunitybut also the strength of our democracy,by taking out the only true way—ateither the bargaining table or the bal-lot box—that working families can havea say in their own destiny. Collectivebargaining is a necessary part of a capi-talist democracy; it ensures economicfairness and reduces income inequal-ity. Given how the scales have tippedagainst working families, and that eco-nomic inequality is at the highest levelsince the Great Depression, it is timeto amend the Civil Rights Act to makeit illegal to fire or discriminate againstworkers who are trying to form a unionand to better their lives and their com-munities. ❏


Randi WeingartenPresident, American Federation of Teachers, [email protected]

Kahlenberg &Marvit RespondWe are grateful that such eminent

scholars, labor and civil rights leadershave taken the time to consider ourargument and offered such thoughtfulresponses. Though we cannot addressall the important issues the commen-tators raise in the depth they deserve,we will address here some of their cen-tral concerns, and look forward to con-tinuing this conversation as the debatesover labor law reform develop.

Each of the commentators agreesthat stronger legal protections must beafforded labor rights, and several gen-eral themes stand out in the responses.Julius Getman, Larry Cohen andTheodore Shaw each make politicalarguments concerning the viability ofour proposal, the tactic of opening upthe Civil Rights Act, and additionalpolitical changes that must accompanyany successful labor law reform effort.Shaw extends this critique to also ques-tion whether our proposal marks a pre-mature shift from focusing on race tofocusing on class. He also questionswhether protections for activity belongin legislation designed to protect iden-tity. Randi Weingarten argues thatcollective action by workers can helpthem enhance their economic positionsand political voices. Sheryll Cashinsuggests that in addition to looking toKing’s Poor People’s Campaign, we

must look towards his idea of the Be-loved Community, especially with re-gard to building multi-class, multi-ra-cial coalitions. Ross Eisenbrey ques-tions the success of the Civil RightsAct in terms of economic improve-ments for African Americans, andtherefore wonders whether labor re-form should be built on discrimina-tion law. Leo Gerard, using a civilrights frame, looks at the historical par-allels between the opponents of laborand opponents of voting rights forAfrican Americans, arguing that bothforms of suppression constitute powergrabs.

Eisenbrey takes issue with our char-acterization of the Civil Rights Act asa success. He argues that though theCivil Rights Act may have improvedthe social and legal relations of Afri-can Americans, it has not significantlyimproved the economic conditions ofAfrican Americans. Eisenbrey is cor-rect that much more needs to be doneto improve economic conditions ofAfrican Americans, and the nationaldata he provides illustrate that pointwell. However, he too quickly dis-misses the importance of the dramaticlegal and social shifts with race thathave occurred since the 1960s. Theconferral of legal rights has creatednorms in America that would havebeen unimaginable in America 50years ago. This shift, however incom-plete it is, is a positive developmentthat would not have been possible with-out legislation. Labor is in need of asimilar shift, and if our proposal aidsin a change in attitudes towards labor,it will open the door for the additionalreforms proposed by Julius Getman.Indeed, as Leo Gerard notes, joininga union and bargaining collectively are“among the only methods workingpeople can use to assure their economicrights.” As such, the economic goalsof the Civil Rights Act will be furtherachieved by making labor organizinga civil right.

Larry Cohen and Theodore Shaweach support passing legislation tomake labor organizing a civil right,

but believe that the Civil Rights Actshould not be opened at this time. AsShaw correctly notes, civil rights laws“have never been completely safe,”and there is a danger in opening upthe Act when both the Supreme Courtand the House of Representatives aredominated by radical conservatives.These concerns are reasonable, and theproblems associated are easily avoidedin a manner that does not significantlyalter our proposal. Several pieces ofcivil rights reform, including the AgeDiscrimination in Employment Act(ADEA), which created civil rightsprotections for age discrimination,were accomplished through stand-alone legislation. Similarly, a stand-alone bill, which tracks the languageof the Civil Rights Act and writes civilrights into our labor law, would havethe same practical benefit as openingup the Civil Rights Act. By pursuingstand-alone labor reform legislation,we can avoid any potential dangers as-sociated with amending the vital pro-tections of the Civil Rights Act.

Julius Getman agrees that the pro-tections offered by civil rights legisla-tion would benefit workers and unions,but remains skeptical that the lawwould lead to any significant changein conduct by employers. He points tothe extreme advantages employers cur-rently enjoy with respect to organiz-ing campaigns, and suggests focusingalso on legislation prohibiting the hir-ing of permanent replacements andeliminating prohibitions on secondaryboycotts.

Our proposal to make labor orga-nizing a civil right would do much toprotect workers from the high levelsof discrimination and retaliation theycurrently face. Furthermore, it wouldhelp shift the debate from one over theprivate interests of employers andunions to one of basic rights of work-ers. We do not view our proposal asthe singular answer to revitalize labor,nor do we think there is such a silverbullet. Getman is indeed correct thatrepealing Taft-Hartley and limiting orbanning the permanent replacement ofstrikers is necessary to have a robustlabor movement in America. How-

ever, such bills have repeatedly failedto make it through Congress under thebest political conditions. The currentclimate in Washington and weaknessof labor mean that direct labor lawreform is likely impossible in the nearfuture. Part of the political problem isthe result of filibuster, as Cohen sug-gests, but even prior to the modernexpansion of the filibuster, pro-laborlegal reform proved elusive.

In order to pass these more tradi-tional forms of labor law reform, ahigher percentage of employees wouldneed to benefit from union coverage,and labor would need to be stronger.Our proposal attempts to get aroundthis Catch 22—where labor must bestrengthened in order to effectuate sig-nificant reform but significant reformis necessary in order to strengthen la-bor. Randi Weingarten raises preciselythis point when she discusses how thepolitical positions of workers are di-minished by low union density. Shewrites that “the attack on the funda-mental right of workers to freely joinunions not only threatens economic op-portunity but also the strength of ourdemocracy, by taking out the only trueway—at either the bargaining table orthe ballot box—that working familiescan have a say in their own destiny.”Similarly, Leo Gerard argues that es-sential components of self-determina-tion are economic security and the rightto a free vote. Opponents of labor haveshown a propensity to attack both, andthe response should be to strengthenthe right to vote and the right to actcollectively. Strengthening the right tojoin a union and bargain collectivelyholds the hope of creating a politicalenvironment under which workers canachieve further progressive reforms.With the increasing difficulty of pass-ing traditional labor law reform, wepropose that the debate should be cen-tered around the civil rights of work-ers to associate and have a voice in theworkplace. Civil and individual rightspresent a far more powerful and com-pelling argument to most Americansthan the technical and often obscureconfines of labor law.

As Sheryll Cashin argues in her re-

(RESPONSE: Continued from page 17)


sponse, in order for progressive poli-tics to advance, coalitions must bebuilt that defy traditional boundaries.Cashin makes the important argumentthat in addition to King’s PoorPeople’s Campaign, labor should alsolook to the principles of his BelovedCommunity. Central to King’s Be-loved Community is the building ofmulti-racial, multi-class coalitionsaround common principles. Thoughlabor fights for the dignity and voiceof workers, it is too often politically,legally and socially isolated. Oppo-nents make the incorrect charge thatunions fight only for their own mem-bers, often at the expense of otherworkers. We believe that building amovement around labor organizing asa civil right universalizes the cause inimportant respects. Learning from theCivil Rights Movement, and part-nering more closely with civil rightsorganizations, will help labor build thecommunity and interfaith coalitionsthat were central to the Civil RightsMovement.

Though the protections of the CivilRights Act would not eliminate theadvantages employers have, it woulddo much to change their behavior bychanging the employer calculus of vio-lating workers’ rights. In addition tothe increased penalties available underthe Civil Rights Act, employees andunions would gain meaningful accessto the courts. Getman rightly acknowl-edges the “pro-employer bias of thecourts” and suggests that our proposalwould do nothing to change that.However, workers need not win incourt in order to enjoy the significantbenefits of a private right of action.The courts, as Arthur Kinoy madeclear in the labor battles of the 1950s,are a political institution in which la-bor should seek a voice. Using the lib-eral rules of pre-trial discovery, dis-criminated-against workers and unionswould be able to depose managementunder penalty of perjury, examine theemployer’s books, read e-mails andmemos with anti-union consultants,and have access to the inner workingsof the company. In short, this wouldallow workers and unions to disrupt

employers in a manner currently un-available. Furthermore, workers andunions need not win in court in orderto succeed in a lawsuit. Because of thecosts and uncertainty of litigation, themajority of employment discrimina-tion cases settle well before trial. Inthis context, such settlement negotia-tions can be fruitful venues for secur-ing important concessions in organiz-ing campaigns, such as a card checkor neutrality agreement.

Getman also suggests that “findinga way to make the Board less of a po-litical battleground would itself be asignificant reform.” Though not theprimary purpose, our proposal maylead to this shift. One of the reasonsthe Board finds itself in the middle ofpolitical battles is that it has exclusivejurisdiction over labor disputes. Re-ducing funding for the Board or ap-pointing Members who are openlyhostile to labor are effective tacticsbecause workers must proceed throughthe Board process. However, if work-ers have a private right of action, theBoard loses its place as the sole laborbattleground.

Shaw writes that although he is sup-portive of the idea of making labororganizing a civil right, he is concernedthat our proposal may give ground tothose who argue we are in a “post-ra-cial America.” He argues that any leg-islation making organizing a civil rightshould not shift the focus from race toclass, and points out that one of us(Kahlenberg) is a long-time proponentof replacing race-based with class-based affirmative action in education.There are principled reasons to favoror oppose Kahlenberg’s position on af-firmative action in education, but ourargument on labor organizing as a civilright is different. We do not call forreplacing one kind of approach withanother, as in the debates on race-basedor class-based affirmative action.Rather, here we suggest supplement-ing the protected categories in the CivilRights Act with an additional categorythat would help advance some of theoriginal goals of the Act. Our intent isnot to shift the focus away from raceand towards class, but rather to address

some of the intractable issues of classwith some of the legal tools that havehelped change attitudes and culture onrace.

Additionally, Shaw characterizesthe protections of civil rights legisla-tion as protecting “who or what weare” (even when mutable), rather than“what we do.” He argues that conduct-based protections are analytically dis-tinct from identity-based protections,and that the two may not fit in the samelegislation. However, stand-alone leg-islation, as discussed above, does notrequire the two to co-exist in the samelegislation. The deeper point here iswell-taken: that going beyond theoriginal categories of the Civil RightsAct is a conceptual leap. However,federal and state civil rights legisla-tion has already made this leap by in-cluding as protected categories preg-nancy, past criminal conviction, bank-ruptcy, unemployment and the like.The civil rights framework has alreadybeen extended beyond identity catego-ries to cover conduct. The question ofwhether conduct is appropriate for civilrights protections should hinge on twoissues: whether the additional categorywould help promote the original pur-pose of the Civil Rights Act, andwhether the conduct is linked to a fun-damental or constitutional right. Asdescribed in our article above, our pro-posal meets both of these criteria.

Each of the commentators discussesthe poison of our current politics, de-scribing it as “corrupted” and “setagainst common sense.” However des-perate this political situation may be,the one positive benefit to this realityis that it forces progressives to buildbroad-based coalitions rather than in-dividually proceeding along narrowpolitical interests. Our proposal ofmaking labor organizing a civil rightis premised on the importance of suchcoalitions. This alone will not revital-ize labor, but it will help workers vin-dicate long-held rights and help laborpromote other progressive policies. ❏



ResourcesMost Resources areavailable directly from theissuing organization, eitheron their website (if given) orvia other contact informa-tion listed. Materialspublished by PRRAC areavailable through ourwebsite: www.prrac.org.

Prices include theshipping/handling (s/h)charge when this informa-tion is provided toPRRAC. “No price listed”items often are free.

When ordering items fromPRRAC: SASE = self-addressed stampedenvelope (46¢ unlessotherwise indicated).Orders may not be placedby telephone or fax.Please indicate fromwhich issue of P&R youare ordering.

Race/Racism• Segregation: AGlobal History of DividedCities, by Carl Nightin-gale (482 pp., 2012,$35), has been publishedby Univ. of ChicagoPress. [13713]

• Women and the CivilRights Movement is aUniv. of Maryland coursetaught by Dr. ElsaBarkley Brown of theDepts. of History &Women's Studies. Inf.available atwww.coursera/course/womencivilrights [13738]

• “The End of Segre-gation? Hardly: A MoreNuanced View from theNew York MetropolitanRegion,” by RichardAlba & StevenRomalewski, (? pp., n.d.)is available (no pricegiven) from The Centerfor Urban Research of theCUNY Graduate Center,365 Fifth Ave., #6202,

NYC, NY 10016, 212/817-2030.

• “Puerto Ricans inOhio, 2010” (4 pp., Dec.2012) is available(possibly free) from TheCenter for Puerto RicanStudies, 695 Park Ave.,NYC, NY 10065, 212/772-5688, centropr.hunter.cuny.edu

Poverty/Welfare

• "Giving Justice andOpportunity a Name" isthe 23-page BiennialReport 2010-2011 fromthe Sargent ShriverNational Center onPoverty Law. Available(likely free) from them at50 E. Washington St.,#500, Chicago, IL 60602,312/263-3830, www.povertylaw.org [13731]

• "ConcentratedPoverty: A CriticalAnalysis" (15 pp.), byHerbert J. Gans, appearedin the May/June 2010issue of Challenge,published by M.E.Sharpe. [13736]

CriminalJustice

• The SentencingProject's 2011 AnnualReport (celebrating 25years of research andadvocacy for reform -- 13pp.) is available (likelyfree) from them, 1705DeSales St. NW, 8th flr.,Wash., DC 20036, 202/628-0871, www.sentencingproject.org[13735]

Economic/CommunityDevelopment

• "The State of Lend-ing in America and itsImpact on U.S. House-holds," by DebbieBocian, Delvin Davis,Sonia Garrison & BillSermons (119 pp., Dec.2012), has been publishedby the Center for Respon-sible Lending. Available(no price given) fromthem at 202/349-1851,[email protected][13737]

• Housing PolicyDebate will publish aspecial issue on theCommunity DevelopmentBlock Grant Program,edited by Prof. WilliamRohe of the Univ. ofNorth Carolina. Deadlinefor Abstracts, March 31,2013. 919/962-3077

Education• "Failure Is Not anOption: How Principals,Teachers, Students andParents from Ohio'sHigh-Achieving, High-Poverty Schools ExplainTheir Success," byCarolin Hagelskamp &Christopher DiStasi (64pp., 2012), is available(no price listed) fromPublic Agenda, 6 E. 39thSt., NYC, NY 10016,212/686-6610, [email protected][13711]

• "Do FederallyAssisted HouseholdsHave Access to HighPerforming Schools?,"by Ingrid Gould Ellen &Karen Mertens Horn (24pp., Nov. 2012), isavailable on PRRAC’swebsite, www.prrac.org .[13716]

• "Teacher Absence asa Leading Indicator ofStudent Achievement,"by Raegen Miller (Nov.2012, 24 pp.), is avail-able (no price listed) fromthe Center for AmericanProgress, 1333 H St. NW,10th flr. , Wash., DC20005, 202/682-1611.[13719]

• "KeepingIrreplaceables in D.C.Public Schools: Lessonsin Smart TeacherRetention" (20 pp., 2012)from the New TeacherProject is available attntp.org/ideas-and-innovations/view/keeping-irreplaceables-in-dc-public-schools [13720]

• "How Strong AreU.S. Teacher Unions? AState-by-State Compari-son," by Amber M.Winkler, Janie Scull &Dara Zeehandelaar (405pp., Oct. 2012), isavailable (no price given)from the Thomas B.Fordham Institute,www.edexcellence.net/publications/how-strong-are-us-teacher-unions.html [13721]

• "Title IX at 40:Working to EnsureGender Equity inEducation" (7 pp., 2012)is available (no pricegiven) from the NationalCoalition for Women &Girls in Education,consisting of the Ameri-can Assn. of UniversityWomen (202/785-7700),National Women's LawCenter (202/588-5180) &American Federation ofTeachers (202/879-4400).[13741]

• The Forum onEducational Accountabil-ity can be contacted viaMonty Neill at 617/335-2115. [13746]


• "Principles ofEffective ExpandedLearning Programs: AVision Built on theAfterschool Approach"(4 pp., Jan. 2012) isavailable (possibly free)from The AfterschoolAlliance, 1616 H St. NW,#820, Wash., DC 20006,866/KIDS-TODAY[13747]

• "School Boards:Leading the Way onExpanded LearningOpportunities" (3 pp.,n.d.) is available (possi-bly free) from the Na-tional School BoardsAssn., 1680 Duke St.,Alexandria, VA 22314-3493, 703/838-6722,www.nsba.org [13748]

• Faculty Diversity: TheAmerican Federation ofTeachers has severalresources on facultydiversity, available atwww.aft.org/issues/highered/diversity.cfm[13745]

• "Making the Differ-ence: Research andPractice in CommunitySchools: ExecutiveSummary" (7 pp., n.d.) isavailable (no price listed)from the Coalition forCommunity Schools,1001 Conn. Ave. NW,#310, Wash., DC 20036,202/822-8405, x156,[email protected], www.communityschools.org[13749]

• “How Washington,DC Schools Cheat TheirStudents Twice,” byCaleb Rossiter, is avail-able at http://dianeravitch.net/2012/12/02cheating-students-in-d-c-with-phony-credentials

• "Perspectives on theFuture of TeacherPreparation in theDigital Age" was a Dec.11, 2012 Webinarorganized by the Alliancefor Excellent Education.

Inf. from [email protected] [13722]

• "Rodriguez at 40:Exploring New Paths toEqual Education Oppor-tunity," co-sponsored bythe Univ. of RichmondSchool of Law & theCharles Hamilton Hous-ton Inst. for Race &Justice, will take placeMarch 8, 2013 at theUniv. of RichmondSchool of Law. Con-firmed speakers at thisfree event include CharlesOgletree, Derek Black,Susan Eaton & AmyStuart Wells. Inf. fromconf. organizer KimberlyJenkins Robinson,[email protected][13742]

Employment/Labor/Jobs Policy

• "Home Economics:The Invisible andUnregulated World ofDomestic Work" (68 pp.,Nov. 2012) is available(no price given) from TheNational DomesticWorkers Alliance, 3307th Ave., 19th flr., NYC,NY 10001-5010, 646/360-5806. [13708]

• "Economic Recoveryand Social Investment: AStrategy to Create GoodJobs in the ServiceSector," by RobertKuttner (14 pp., Nov.2012), is available (noprice given) from Demos,220 Fifth Ave., 2nd flr.,NYC, NY 10001, 212/633-1405. [13710]

• "Promoting Racialand Ethnic Diversity inthe Faculty: WhatHigher Education UnionsCan Do" (36 pp., 2010) isavailable (no price given)from AFT Higher Educa-tion, 202/879-4400,www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/facultydiversity0310.pdf [13744]

• No More InvisibleMan: Race and Gender inMen’s Work, by AdiaHarvey Wingfield (212pp., 2012, $79.50), hasbeen published byTemple Univ. Press, 800/621-2736.

Food/Nutrition/Hunger

• Cultivating FoodJustice: Race, Class, andSustainability, eds.Alison Hope Alkon &Julian Agyeman (404 pp.,2011, $27), has beenpublished by MIT Press.[13703]

Health• "Housing Transitionsand Low Birth WeightAmong Low-IncomeWomen: LongitudinalStudy of the PerinatalConsequences of Chang-ing Public HousingPolicy," by Michael R.Kramer et al., appeared inthe Dec. 2012 issue ofThe American Journal ofPublic Health, [13707]

• "Health of PuertoRicans in the UnitedStates, 2000-2010," byAnna Rosofsky & JudithAponte, is a 4-page, Nov.2012 Research Brief,available (possibly free)from Hunter College'sCenter for Puerto RicanStudies, 695 Park Ave.,NYC, NY 10065, 212/772-5688, centerprhunter.cuny.edu [13714]

• "Understanding theHealth Impact of Rac-ism—And Trying toReverse It," by Naa OyoKwate, appeared in theDec. 2012 issue of HealthAffairs, www.healthaffairs.org [13730]

• “Fostering HealthyFamilies Through StableHousing: The Role of theHealth Care System” (3

pp., Nov. 2012) isavailable (possibly free)from the NationalInstitute for Health CareManagement, 1225 19thSt. NW, #710, Wash., DC20036, nihcm.org/images/stories/Childrens_health_and_housing_fact_sheet.pdf

Housing• The AffordableHousing Reader, eds. J.Rosie Tighe & ElizabethJ. Mueller (2012, 592pp.), has been publishedby Routledge. [13700]

• "Profiles of Risk:Race and HousingInstability" is a 6-page,Nov. 2012 ResearchBrief, available (possiblyfree) from the Institute forChildren, Poverty &Homelessness, 212/358-8086, x1204, [email protected] [13715]

• Racial Democracyand the Black Metropo-lis: Housing Policy inPostwar Chicago, byPreston H. Smith II (433pp., 2012), has beenpublished by Univ. Minn.Press, www.upress.umn.edu [13728]

• "Losing Ground: TheStruggle of Moderate-Income Households toAfford the Rising Costsof Housing and Trans-portation" is a 26-pageOct. 2012 report from theCenter for HousingPolicy & the Center forNeighborhood Technol-ogy. Available (no pricegiven) from either org. --202/466-2121 (former),773/278-4800 (latter).[13739]

• “Eviction (Without)Notice: Renters and theForeclosure Crisis”(2012) is available (noprice given) from EricTars at the National LawCenter on Homelessness& Poverty, 1411 K St.NW, #1400, Wash., DC


20005, 202/635-2535,http://www.nlchp.org/view_report.cfm?id=389

• “ParticipatoryDemocracy and PublicHousing” was a Dec. 3,2012 roundtable discus-sion at the Wilson CenterComparative UrbanStudies Program. Inf. [email protected]

• "The Human Right toHousing: A Report Cardon U.S. Policy" was afree Webinar, put on bythe National Law Centeron Homelessness &Poverty, that took placeDec. 10, 2012. Inf. fromEric Tars at the Center,1411 K St. NW, #1400,Wash., DC 20005, 202/638-2535. [13712]

• "The National Centerfor Healthy Housing" isholding its 20th anniv.Leadership Conf., Feb.13-15, 2013 in NYC. Inf.from the Alliance, 10320Little Patuxent Pkwy.,Columbia, MD 21044,[email protected][13709]

• The National LowIncome Housing Coali-tion (headed by formerPRRAC Bd. memberSheila Crowley) isholding its annual SpringConference March 17-20,2013 in Washington, DC.Inf. from them at 72715th St. NW, 6th flr.,Wash., DC 20005, 202/662-1530, [email protected]

• “Changing America:The EmancipationProclamation, 1853 andthe March on Washing-ton, 1963” is a first-rateexhibit at the SmithsonianNational Museum ofAfrican American Historyand Culture, which istemporarily housed at theNational Museum ofAmerican History, untilits own building, on the

Mall, is completed in2015. Be sure to catch itif you live near DC or arecoming for a meeting,vacation, whatever. It willbe there until Sept. 15,2013. More inf. atNMAAHC.SI.EDU

Immigration• Abused: The PostvilleRaid is a full-lengthdocumentary (2011?) onthe 2008 ICE raid at aPostville, Iowa kosherslaughterhouse, where800 armed ICE agentsarrested/handcuffed/chained 389 immigrantworkers. Upcomingscreenings/further inf.from the Foundation forChild Development, 295Madison Ave., 40th flr.,NYC, NY 10017, 212/867-5777, abusedthepostvilleraid.blogspot.com[13724]

• "Legal Violence:How ImmigrationEnforcement AffectsFamilies, Schools, andWorkplaces" was a Dec.11, 2012 webcast fromthe Center for AmericanProgress. Inf. from 202/682-1611, [email protected][13733]

Miscellaneous• The 99%: How theOccupy Wall StreetMovement is ChangingAmerica, eds. DonHazen, Tara Lohan &Lynn Parramore (259 pp.,2011, $16.95), has beenpublished by AlterNetBooks, 101 Spear St.,#203, SF, CA 94105. 77short essays/interviewsby/with Amy Goodman,Noam Chomsky, EliotSpitzer, Naomi Klein etal. [13697]

• Fire on the Prairie:Harold Washington,Chicago Politics and the

Roots of the ObamaPresidency, by GaryRivlin (312 pp., 2012,$32.95), has beenpublished in a revisededition by Temple Univ.Press. [13704]

• The Power of UrbanEthnic Places: CulturalHeritage and CommunityLife, by Jan Lin (280 pp.,2011, $34.95), has beenpublished by Abingdon,Routledge [13723]

• The City AfterAbandonment, eds.Margaret Dewar & JuneManning Thomas (Oct.2012, $75 -- but a 20%discount available usingdiscount code P4V8), hasbeen published by Univ.of Pennsylvania Press.[13725]

• "Does ParticipatoryGovernance Matter?:Exploring the Natureand Impact of Participa-tory Reforms," by BrianWampler & Stephanie L.McNulty (41 pp., 2012?),is available (no pricegiven) from the WoodrowWilson InternationalCenter for Scholars, OneWoodrow Wilson Plaza,1300 Pennsylvania Ave.NW, Wash., DC 20004-3027, www.wilsoncenter.org/cusp [13727]

• National Conferenceon Media Reform,sponsored by Free Press,will take place April 5-7,2013 in Denver. Inf. fromhttp://conference.freepress.net, or 40 MainSt., #301, Florence, MA01062.

JobOpportunities/Fellowships/Grants

• The National LowIncome Housing Coali-

tion (headed by formerPRRAC Bd. memberSheila Crowley) isseeking to fill 2 positions:an Outreach Associateand a Research Analyst.Ltr./salary reqs./resume/writing sample to BillShields, [email protected]

• The Center for Law& Social Policy(PRRAC’s office partner)will be hiring a newDirector, as Alan House-man (one of PRRAC’sfounding Bd. members),who has held the positionfor 32 years, has an-nounced his intention toretire at the end of 2013.Readers who want tosuggest possible candi-dates (or apply them-selves) should contactKatie McNerney ofLeaderFit, 202/997-8992,[email protected]

• The Texas LowIncome Housing Service(Galveston) is seeking aStaffer to continue theirwork on the Gulf Coast.Detailed inf. available athttp://texashousers.net/2012/12/12/job-an-nouncement-galveston-based-housing-policy-analyst-planner-advocate-community-outreach-specialist/ Other contact:Chrishelle Palay, 713/828-4560, [email protected]

• The CongressionalHunger Center is accept-ing applications for itsEmerson National HungerFellows (16-20 areappointed annually).Modest pay, late Aug.,2013 start date. Applica-tions due Jan. 14, 2013.http.//www.emersonapplication.org. Ques-tions?: [email protected], 202/547-7022, x29.

If You Are Not Already a P&R Subscriber,Please Use the Coupon Below.

❏ Sign Me Up! ❏ 1 year ($25) or ❏ 2 years ($45)

Please enclose check made out to PRRAC or a purchase order from your institution.

Name _____________________________________________________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________________________________________________

Address Line 2 _____________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip _____________________________________________________________________________

Telephone: ____________________________ email: _________________________________________

Mail to: Poverty & Race Research Action Council1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036

Poverty & Race • Vol. 22, No. 1 • January/February 2013• 23

PRRAC'S SOCIAL SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

Dolores Acevedo-GarciaBrandeis Univ.

Xavier de Souza BriggsMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Camille Zubrinsky CharlesDept. of Sociology, Univ. of Pennsylvania

Stefanie DeLucaJohns Hopkins Univ.

Ingrid Gould EllenNew York Univ.

Wagner School of Public Service

Lance FreemanColumbia Univ. School of Architecture,

Planning and Preservation

John GoeringBaruch College, City Univ. of New York

Heidi HartmannInst. for Women’s Policy Research (Wash., DC)

William KornblumCUNY Center for Social Research

Harriette McAdooMichigan State Dept. of Sociology

Fernando MendozaDept. of Pediatrics, Stanford Univ.

Roslyn Arlin MickelsonUniv. of No. Carolina-Charlotte

Pedro NogueraNew York Univ. School of Education

Paul OngUCLA School of Public Policy

& Social Research

Gary OrfieldUCLA Civil Rights Project

Gregory D. SquiresDept. of Sociology, George Washington Univ.

Margery Austin TurnerThe Urban Institute (Wash., DC)

Margaret WeirDept. of Political Science

Univ. of California, Berkeley

David WilliamsHarvard School of Public Health

Poverty & Race Research Action Council1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200

Washington, DC 20036202/906-8023 FAX: 202/842-2885

E-mail: [email protected]: www.prrac.org

Address Service Requested1-2/13

NonprofitU.S. Postage

PAIDJefferson City, MO

Permit No. 210

POVERTY & RACE RESEARCH ACTION COUNCILBoard of Directors/Staff

CHAIRJohn Charles BogerUniversity of North CarolinaSchool of Law

Chapel Hill, NC

VICE-CHAIRJosé PadillaCalifornia Rural Legal

AssistanceSan Francisco, CA

SECRETARYjohn powellHaas Institute for aFair and Inclusive SocietyUniversity of California-Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

TREASURERSpence LimbockerNeighborhood FundersGroup

Annandale, VA

S.M. MillerThe Commonwealth InstituteCambridge, MA

Don NakanishiUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles, CA

Dennis ParkerAmerican Civil LibertiesUnion

New York, NYAnthony Sarmiento

Senior Service AmericaSilver Spring, MD

Theodore M. ShawColumbia Law SchoolNew York, NY

Brian SmedleyHealth Policy InstituteJoint Center for Political andEconomic Studies

Washington, DCCatherine Tactaquin National Network for

Immigrant & Refugee Rights Oakland, CACamille Holmes Wood

National Legal Aid &Defender Assn.

Washington, DC

Philip TegelerPresident/Executive Director

Chester HartmanDirector of Research

Megan HaberlePolicy Counsel

Gina ChirichignoCo-Director

One Nation Indivisible

Ebony GaylesLaw & Policy Fellow

Silva MathemaResearch Fellow

Michael HiltonLaw & Policy Fellow

Janis BowdlerNational Councilof La Raza

Washington, DCJohn Brittain

University of the Districtof Columbia School of LawWashington, DC

Sheryll CashinGeorgetown University Law Center

Washington, DCCraig Flournoy

Southern MethodistUniversity

Dallas, TXDamon Hewitt

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.New York, NY

Olati JohnsonColumbia Law SchoolNew York, NY

Elizabeth JulianInclusive CommunitiesProject

Dallas, TXDemetria McCain

Inclusive CommunitiesProject

Dallas, TX

[Organizations listed foridentification purposes only]

poverty & race research action council

Documents

Transcript of poverty & race research action council