* The terms of conciliation should be clear, and should include an absolute requirement that discriminatory practices end in future sales or rentals. There should be follow-up on the agreement.

* Successes under the law should be dramatized and widely publicized.

## b) BRINGING WILLING BUYER AND SELLER TOGETHER

**Background:** One of the major activities of local fair housing groups is establishing contact between homeseekers (usually nonwhite) and owners or landlords (usually white), thus filling the vacuum created by a restricted housing market. Many of the groups operate informal listing services -- a particularly important operation in areas where there is no fair housing law or where the law covers a small part of the housing supply. Many have more housing accommodations listed than they have prospective buyers or tenants.

* * * * *

**Workshop Chairman:** Charlotte Meacham, National Representative for Housing Programs, American Friends Service Committee. **Panel:** Helen Baker, Associate Director, Washington Metropolitan Housing Program, AFSC; Terry Chisholm, Supervisor of Housing Program, Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations; Mary Berger, Secretary, Massachusetts Committee Against Discrimination in Housing; Frank Quinn, Executive Director, Council for Civic Unity, San Francisco; and Sidonia Trommer, Chairman, Yonkers (N.Y.) Fair Housing Committee.

## MAJOR POINTS WHICH EMERGED:

### On Getting Listings:

* Avoid "white elephants." Homeseekers are looking for suitable housing.

* Have committee members solicit open occupancy listings by checking classified ads in the newspapers.

* Publicize the committee's desire for listings. Run an ad in the local press.

* Advertise for housing. (Three intemes in San Francisco placed an ad in the local press saying: "I'm a doctor ... I'm a Negro ... I can't find an apartment." They were offered their choice of 12 apartments.)

* Make provision on "Welcome Neighbor" pledge signing cards for signers to list a house or an apartment if they plan to move or have one available.

* Seek for cooperative real estate brokers.

* If there is a fair housing law, encourage minority homeseekers to apply for housing it covers, and provide assistance in seeing that the family gets the available accommodation he desires.

- 31 -

## On Finding Buyers or Renters:

* Concentrated information programs should be beamed to the minority communities. Use the press, meetings, speakers at churches and before clubs, and personal contacts. Information should include: the services offered by the fair housing committee, examples of successful integration, the advantages of integrated communities. If there is a fair housing law, publicize what it covers and how to use it effectively.

* Emphasize making the committee's services known to organized groups in the Negro community -- fraternities, sororities, etc., -- with middle-class memberships.

* Leisure-time, social contacts are extremely important. Many groups have found that parties, picnics, dances, and small dinners lead to personal relationships which in turn lead to homeseekers.

* The "satisfied customer" -- the Negro family which is happily situated as the result of assistance from a fair housing committee -- is the group's best salesman for integration.

* Provide a first-class consumer service for prospective buyers, including information on what buyers (or renters) should look for in a home: type of housing; construction; the market; financing, etc. Also including data on the true cost of home-ownership in relation to ability to pay: mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, maintenance, decoration, heat, commutation, if any, etc.

* If possible, open a readily-accessible office in the heart of a ghetto.

## On Financing:

* The fair housing group should identify lending institutions in its locality or nearby which operate on a nondiscriminatory basis.

* If there is a fair housing law which applies to lenders, make use of it.

* Assistance may be obtained through the Voluntary Home Mortgage Credit Program, Washington 25 (or the nearest regional office), which aids eligible applicants for mortgage financing who have been rejected by two private lenders. The housing in question must meet FHA or VA standards, and the borrower must meet normal credit requirements.

## c) NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION

**Background:** Changing neighborhoods are not a new phenomenon. American neighborhoods have never been static. The new dimension today is that too often the change is caused by fear and hysteria fostered and exploited by real estate operators.

Fair housing groups which are working to open closed communities, as well as those working in integrated neighborhoods, need to develop techniques to prevent panic selling and flight by white residents. They must be in a position to stop rumors, to reassure a disturbed neighbor, and to stop unethical real estate practices.

* * * * *

- 32 -

**Workshop Chairman:** John A. McDermott, Executive Secretary, Catholic Interracial Council of Chicago.
**Panel:** Edward L. Holmgren, Executive Director, Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc.; William H. Oliver, Co-Director, Fair Practices and Anti-Discrimination Department, United Auto Workers; and Margery T. Ware, Executive Secretary, Neighbors, Inc., Washington, D. C.

### Overall Essentials:

* An open housing market which encompasses the entire metropolitan area, plus an adequate supply of housing at all economic levels, are necessary for the long-range stabilization of neighborhoods.

* Legislation is basic to opening the market and to securing an adequate supply of housing.

* Increasing emphasis must be placed on opening up the suburbs.

* The gap between Negro and white income must be closed.

* Government is obligated to exert positive and vigorous leadership in attaining dispersion, working in partnership with voluntary groups.

* Urban renewal programs must be phased out, and must be geared to the creation of residential integration.

### In the Neighborhood:

* The major problem is two-fold: keeping white families from moving out and getting white families to move in as the normal turnover in housing occurs. Committees should employ some of the same techniques used in finding prospects to open restricted neighborhoods (see Willing Buyer Meet Willing Seller, page 31).

* Grassroots organization is essential. One panelist suggested that garden clubs not only help beautify a neighborhood, but provide psychological benefits for both whites and Negroes. Programs aimed at school improvement attract diversified supporters, as do park and hospital projects.

* The neighborhood schools are crucial. Their importance in a stabilization program cannot be over-emphasized, both as to educational standards and racial composition. Those persons who are most deeply committed to residential integration are apt to be most sensitive to the quality of education available for their children. Thus even liberal whites, enjoying freedom of movement which is largely denied their nonwhite counterparts, are likely to leave a neighborhood if there is a reduction in the quality of the schools. Even the *image* of deterioration is dangerous.

- 33 -

* Attention must be given to all matters which affect the physical standards of the community: zoning regulations, maintenance of streets and sanitation services, upkeep of property, and recreational facilities.

* Efforts to combat panic selling may be aided by ethical, moral, and status appeals, but it is important to involve the local clergy, prominent citizens and the business community in the stabilization effort.

* The consensus, however, was that the decision of residents "to flee or not to flee" is more apt to be based on practical considerations. As one discussant put it, "This is apt to be the battle of the P's -- prejudice vs. pocketbook."

* Practical factors which should be emphasized include: the assets of the neighborhood; the high cost of moving elsewhere; the prospect that "running away" from integration will be futile anyway; evidence that pleasant, Integrated neighborhoods are not new, are on the increase, and are historically inevitable.

* If there is a fair housing law, the likelihood of widespread integration should be stressed.

* Panic peddling real estate agents and speculators should be exposed. Well-publicized public hearings have proved effective. Dishonest and unethical conduct should be subject to discipline by the state licensing agency. There was no consensus among the discussants as to the value of existing anti-panic peddling legislation.

### d) DIRECT ACTION

**Background:** The use of direct action techniques has increased sharply in the housing-civil rights field in recent months. The action may involve a mass protest, or a promotional program, or a testing activity. All have important educational values, and often produce significant bi-products as well as concrete results.

A typical protest action is carried forward in a series of steps. First, an investigation is undertaken to establish whether or not discrimination did in fact take place and, if so, to identify the responsible parties. Then, a "good faith" effort is made to solve the problem by direct negotiation with those responsible. If this effort is unsuccessful, a public protest -- such as picketing, a sit-in, or a dwell-in, is launched.

"Operation Windowshop" is a promotional program. Groups of Negroes are encouraged to visit new housing developments to inspect and possibly consider the purchase of a home -- to enter the mainstream of the housing market. This program provides a degree of consumer education, accustoms real estate agents to dealing with nonwhite prospects, and acquaints the white homeseeker with the concept of an open housing market.

The "walk-in" is a device several groups have used to test the practices of real estate firms or a sales force at a development when there are indications that discriminatory practices are being followed. Pairs of Negro and white prospective homeseekers do the testing.

- 34 -

**Workshop Chairman:** Roy Millenson, Washington National Representative, The American Jewish Committee; **Panel:** Marvin Rich, Community Relations Director, Congress of Racial Equality; Evelyn Dubrow, Executive Secretary, Political Department, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union; Booker T. McGraw, Assistant to the Administrator for Intergroup Relations, HHFA; and Curtis Moody, Housing Secretary, Pacific-Southwest Region, AFSC.

### On Direct Action in General.

* It is important to interpret the action to the community at large and to involve as many local citizens in the project as possible.

* Direct action should be used in conjunction with fair housing laws where they exist. The group should seek to bolster the effectiveness of the law.

* Pressure should be exerted to win the cooperation of local elected officials and political figures. (In a recent California protest action, local police encouraged the harassing of picketers. Among the 42 persons arrested was a minister whose formerly-apathetic congregation became aroused when he was thrown in jail. Negotiations with local officials led to a complete reorganization of the town's police department.)

* Both the group which adopts a militant approach and that which serves as reconciler has a role to play, and each should recognize the importance of the other. Unity and cooperation between them is vital.

### On the Use of Protest Techniques.

* Before a protest action is launched, there must be a fair and reasoned assessment of the facts, and a genuine effort to reach a satisfactory agreement with the responsible parties.

* The wishes of the aggrieved person must be taken into account -- "not everyone is a pioneer."

- 35 -

D. CLOSING LUNCHEON, Friday, April 26

Presiding: Algemon D. Black

Speakers: Thomas V. Sinclair, Jr., Chairman, Housing Committee, Harlem Neighborhoods Association, Inc.

NCDH Vice President Loren Miller

Before hearing addresses by the two luncheon speakers, the Conference heard a brief word from stage, screen and television star Myma Loy, who is Co-Chairman of the NCDH Advisory Council. Miss Loy said:

"My warm congratulations and thanks for the most informative, constructive and inspiring conference I can remember attending. It has been a joy and a privilege to share these two days with all of you. The task we have set for ourselves is one of the most urgent ones facing our country. We must succeed in building a society of free people which is based on neighborhoods. I want each of you to know that you can count on me -- from here on out."

Excerpts from the Address by Mr. Sinclair

"FOR COMMUNITIES OF EXCELLENCE"

After 25 years of public housing in the United States, and after viewing the results, we are, as friends of public housing, convinced of one thing: Plainly, public housing is in trouble -- it is time to take a good hard look at what the future holds for public housing. It is time to plan to avoid the pitfalls of the past; to plan so that future projects will not destroy neighborhoods; to plan so that future projects will not foster economic and ethnic segregation; it is time to realize that improper site selection can forever embalm a community as a ghetto.

We in New York are used to high rise office buildings. We like things big and bold. It was natural that our public housing program would follow the lead so that we now are building vast projects -- cities unto themselves. People no longer come from a part of New York; they come from a project. This high rise complex in housing has been the result of obvious facts of economics. In terms of people's needs, however, the isolation of communities from each other is strengthened by these cities within the city. The high rise is psychologically wrong for children and old people. It destroys neighborhoods and neighborliness -- elements which have been crucial to the life and growth of our cities.

Another major objection is that economic and ethnic segregation have been furthered by public housing. Quota systems for purposes of integration have heightened the controversy.

As the pattern of public housing site selection in our city has developed, another significant factor emerges. Queens, our largest county with a considerable supply of vacant land has a total of ten low-income housing developments with 9,371 units as compared with overcrowded East and Central Harlem, a small section of the small borough of Manhattan, with 20 low-income developments containing 21,167 units. We are, in effect, subsidizing through the taxpayers' dollar more housing for the poor in poorly housed neighborhoods and keeping middle-income communities as a preserve for middle-income people. It goes without saying that this also keeps Negroes and Puerto Ricans out of all white communities.

The main front of our efforts in the civil rights housing struggle has been to establish a firm basis in our legal system for open occupancy in the community at large. We now need to recognize a second housing front. The need is for creative thinking in planning for the future of present-day segregated and impoverished communities. The need is for new legal tools in our housing legislation to assist in meeting this objective. While much still has to be done "to secure these rights" in terms of legal sanction for the "open city" concept, we cannot permit the hard core of slums and ghettoes to be frozen into rigid patterns of the "communities of the poor" via the exclusive construction of low-income giant projects.

In Harlem, this battle has been waged in the past year relative to the planning for an 18-acre site, currently the home of our "Mets" -- the Polo Grounds. What is currently being planned for this attractive piece of vacant land are four thirty-story buildings with 1600 units of low-income housing. Within a ten-block area, north and south of the site are 1500 units of existing low-income housing. Clearly, 3000 units of low-income housing is not balanced housing.

The response of the Harlem community has been the overwhelming rejection of the plan. Under the leadership of the Harlem Neighborhoods Association, a citizens' organization, the community protest has been sharp and determined. The position of community leadership has been defined in clear-cut terms which are, we believe, basic to a new approach for a second housing front in the civil rights struggle.

The ghetto communities must be planned for now. Planning must be based on balanced housing supply for all economic sectors to make up a "community of excellence." Past neglect and planning from above has created a deficit of housing which must be resolved through large-scale overall planning for such communities.

Diversity of housing and height should be related to overall community needs. The emphasis should be on building "open occupancy" housing in vacant land throughout the city complex and the reduction of density in redeveloping overcrowded, blighted ghetto communities.

Cultural, recreational and commercial facilities which open up the ghetto to the larger community should be a central ingredient of planning. Such diversity of land use when coupled with diverse housing can be the basis for ethnic integration of the new communities which will emerge.

- 37 -

Urban renewal tools and conservation programs should be utilized in order to maximize the area under planning. Such creative plans as New York's West Side Urban Renewal Plan and Cadman Plaza are good models. This will also make it possible to attract private developers who have been shut out of the redevelopment of present ghetto communities. Institutions and business interests in the Negro community will respond to equal opportunities to finance privately developed housing as in other areas.

Lastly and most significantly, the citizens of Harlem, and other communities in our northern cities will insist on a meaningful part in the planning and decision-making. The day of the bulldozer and planning for communities is long since over. To develop "communities of excellence" requires the development of a level of citizen participation which must be encouraged by all levels of government.

It is high time that Federal, State and City governments, in partnership with the people, learn the lessons of the past twenty-five years. A pilot project to demonstrate this dream of a "community of excellence" should be created now as a guide to the entire nation. We hope it will rise on the 18-acre Polo Grounds site. The new face of Harlem which such a plan will make possible will be a long step forward to break the stereotypes of Harlem. It will create a positive image of a mature community which plans for itself and which takes responsibility for meeting its own needs.

### Excerpts from the Address by Mr. Miller

> "A LOOK TO THE FUTURE -- WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?"

Every social reform in a democratic society, whether affected by legislative or executive action, presents a differing picture to those involved, especially where it concerns an explosive issue and has been vigorously sought, long delayed and tenaciously resisted. Those by whom the reform is instituted are inclined to present it as a sweeping answer to the problem with which it was designed to cope. Those whose practices it was fashioned to curtail or change seek to minimize the reform in such a manner that it will not disrupt former practices and procedures which, of course, they regard as having been justified and consonant with public welfare. The general public more often than not regards the entire matter with apathy and indifference. Those who sought, and whose protests and urgings induced, the reform often regard it as minimal and inadequate, but prudence requires that they seek to maximize its possibilities for departures from old ways and to utilize its procedural provisions to broaden its scope, even as they press for additional changes to conform with their initial demands.

The Housing Order is no exception. Of course, its authors are trying to put the best possible face on it. The housing industry is alternately crying out that it is the harbinger of disaster or that it changes nothing. We who sought the reform so long must chart our own course. No good can be served by a tame acceptance of the Order as a realization of our ideal. It is not. At worst, it is a cease-fire order staying further Federal support of a lily-white army of occupation which has conquered the suburbs of our great cities and isolated Negroes in the centers of our urban complexes. At best -- and to change the metaphor -- it is an instrument, blunt but useful, which may be sharpened for increasingly effective use in the

- 38 -

long contest that lies ahead. We would be recreant to our self-constituted mission to
abolish discrimination in urban housing if we accepted the Order as sufficient for our
task and halted efforts to revise and broaden it; we would be derelict in our duty as
a leader in practical attempts to attain our goal if we failed to expand the Order to
its fullest potential.

It is important that we see the problem with which the Order was designed to deal in
its proper perspective. At once it becomes perfectly apparent -- at least to me -- that
the Order's very lateness reduces its effectiveness. Had precisely the same order been
issued in the 1930's or the 1940's -- perhaps even in the early 1950's -- it would have
had a tremendous impact on the housing market. Vast new peripheral urban areas would
not have been summarily closed to Negro occupancy. And while it would not have
entirely prevented, it would have substantially curtailed the mushroom growth of the
all-white developments that ring our cities. More than that, it would have profoundly
influenced the climate of public opinion and by this time would have altered the attitudes
of brokers, lenders, developers, builders, and urban dwellers, white and Negro alike.

I do not rake old scores to recriminate or to blame. I cite history to illuminate the
sobering truth that today's massive residential segregation is not -- as its apologists would
have us believe -- the spontaneous outgrowth of the urbanization of Negroes. Nor was
it inevitable. True enough, there was a seed bed of popular prejudice and a sprouting of
noxious racial practices. But government fertilized that seed bed; government tended and
nourished that noxious growth.

A recognition of the nature, character and extent of past governmental involvement in
residential segregation is a necessary prerequisite to a realistic appraisal of the part which
governmental reform -- using that term in its broadest sense to include all official action
from fair housing ordinances to the Presidential Order -- must play if we are to eliminate
discrimination in the housing market. Nor will we be able to assess the efficacy of
voluntary action in the elimination of restrictive practices in that market unless we under-
stand past correlation between private and governmental action and then make a determina-
tion of the extent to which voluntary action can be operative and effective with the
change in governmental policies.

For it is plain that the Order signalizes the end of an era: It marks the withdrawal of
Federal support, in the shape of administrative devices, for residential segregation just as
the interdiction of Court enforcement of racial covenants tolled the end of judicial sanction
of the ghetto. Legislative support had been prohibited in the early cases invalidating racial
zoning ordinances and today nothing remains by way of overt governmental support and
sanction of residential segregation except the sporadic, and necessarily limited, use of
thinly disguised eminent domain proceedings by local governmental subdivisions. Simply
put, executive, judicial and legislative arms of government may no longer be used to any
significant extent to impose further racial segregation in urban housing.

The summer is ended but we are not saved.

The long continued exertion of state power, interacting with, supporting, and sometimes initiating private discriminatory action has left us a heritage of monumental proportions. The resultant Black Belts have a dynamic of their own; they are pregnant with the seeds of their own perpetuation and expansion. Many of the very persons whom they victimize have -- or what is of the same immediate purport, believe they have -- a vested interest in the maintenance, indeed the growth, of the ghetto as is grossly evidenced by the mystique of the Muslim movement in which residential segregation is invested with an aura of desirability because it has the appearance of inevitability and stability. The Muslims bid Negroes demand more of what they don't want because, they say, the nation will offer nothing more. The appeal of that dogma to the many thousands of underprivileged Negroes trapped in the Black Belts must not be minimized; to them the demand of the middle-class Negro for living space outside the ghetto may appear as only a device to escape what are regarded as racial responsibilities. To many middle-class Negroes flight from the Black Belt is fraught with the danger of loss of clients, customers and political preferment. Even the discontented can be pardoned if many have accommodated themselves to the belief that for them there will be no day of triumph over residential segregation.

The growth of the ghetto, and the concomitant burgeoning of "white" neighborhoods, has strengthened popular belief in the ethnic neighborhood as the beau ideal of the American city. The concept that defined sections of the city belong to the racial group that inhabits them is a prevailing notion of our urban folklore. That set of folk beliefs has a language of its own, bristling with military terminology. Negroes are said to "invade" or "infiltrate" what are regarded as white communities and embattled whites are depicted as standing heroic and eternal guard to repulse the unwanted, almost hated, invaders. The "would-you-want-a-Negro-to-live-next-door-to-you?" inquiry is assuming the proportions of the "would-you-want-your-sister-to-marry-a-Negro?" squelch and has almost equal potency. That folklore has it that there is a mystical tipping point almost beyond human control that shapes the destinies of urban communities and orders their racial composition. Concurrently, it is being said in louder and louder voices that the mores, the customs, and the traditions of residential segregation will not yield until there is a change in the hearts and minds of men. Law-ways, the head shakers say in the accents of the 19th century, cannot mend folk-ways. The conclusion is that although progress is inevitable, none of us, or our children, will ever reach the promised land.

It is apparent too that residential segregation is becoming the conservator of separate public facilities which are strongly armored against judicial, administrative and legislative assault because of their neighborhood character. Here, too, a folklore is being developed with its own passwords. We are being deluged with talk of "de facto" segregation as opposed to "de jure" segregation and being wamed that poor little Negro children must not be used as "warriors" in the struggle for integration.

Moreover, discrimination in housing has become institutionalized in the practices of real estate brokers, in the policies of lending institutions and in the selling habits and devices of builders and developers. The Negro home seeker is swept up by that institutionalization when he enters the housing market and he cannot escape its coercive effect unless he exerts almost heroic resistance, of which many, perhaps most, are incapable. Even an escape to a new area may bring only temporary surcease because of another set of institutionalized market practices. On the morrow of the first Negro residence, the new

- 40 -

community may become another ghetto as whites give way to panic and as real estate
brokers, Negro and white alike, discover a new market.

Recognition of those difficulties and the prospect, almost the certainty, that private
initiative will be unavailing inspires proponents of residential segregation to insist that
efforts to rid the market of racially restrictive devices be resigned to voluntary groups.
There is nothing new or original in that insistence; a similar claim has always been the
last refuge of those who would resist and defeat social change. Faced with such an
impasse, Americans are accustomed to enlisting governmental power and leadership to
meet the crisis. That was true in the classic case of slavery where resort to arms became
necessary and in the instances of child labor, minimum wages, stock market controls, the
right of labor to organize and bargain collectively, abolition of discrimination in employ-
ment and a hundred and one other situations which were susceptible to voluntary adjustments
and corrections but in which strongly held and deeply ingrained attitudes foreclosed the
probability of private action soon enough and sweeping enough to cure the social ill.
Governmental action and leadership are necessary in the housing crisis that confronts us.

To some extent that need is being met by fair housing ordinances and laws which not
only prohibit discrimination but which in effect invite the Negro to seek shelter outside
the ghetto, and at the same time palsy the restraining hand of opposition. Such legislation
is an implicit ranging of the city or state on the side of integration of the Negro into the
entire housing supply. The more complete the coverage of such laws, the more effective
the city or state becomes in effectuating Negro occupancy in hitherto closed neighborhoods.
To the extent that the Presidential Order applies to public housing, to housing
constructed under Urban Redevelopment plans, to sales of repossessed housing built under
the mortgage insurance system, and to Federally owned or managed housing, it also implies
Federal approval and encouragement of integration. The cutting edge of that approval is
dulled by the fact that the Federal Government deliberately chose to exclude such a large
segment of the housing over which it could have exercised control and to which it could
have beckoned Negro home seekers.

But implicit governmental sanction of integration of Negroes into the entire housing supply
is not enough; what is now implicit must be made explicit. Just as fair employment
commissions have found it necessary and socially desirable to encourage Negroes to enter
the labor market and to persuade employers to facilitate and encourage their entry, so
fair housing commissions must recruit Negroes into the open housing market. That recruit-
ment process might well take the form of intensive advice to Negroes of their right to find
shelter of their own choosing everywhere and of parallel insistence to opposing communities
that the ethnic neighborhood has become an anachronism in the eyes of the law.

A similar duty to stimulate Negro demand for and occupancy of housing now theoretically
open to them under terms of the Order should be assumed by Federal housing agencies.
The Federal Government cannot discharge its responsibility by mere corrective steps taken
after discrimination has occurred, primarily because the housing market is geared to such
discrimination through institutionalized practices connived at, or fostered, by prior Federal
action. In the practices of the market, the actual sale of FHA housing is in the hands of
real estate brokers or agents of builders and developers habituated to discrimination and
acquainted with all of its subleties. Judicious and fair-on-their-face practices can

- 41 -

conceal the availability of such housing, and channel sales away, from Negro buyers and renters. The listing of repossessed housing with such brokers, even with the admonition that they must not discriminate, is not enough. The danger is that in both cases the selling brokers and agents may take the pledge but not the cure. Of course, the imposition of penalties will work a long-term deterrence but we have no time to waste or wait; the need of the moment is for prevention. So an urban redevelopment plan which does not avow racial integration as one of its primary objectives, with administrative safeguards to accomplish that aim, can easily result in wholesale displacement of Negroes and their dispersal to other segregated communities. Or an obstensible open occupancy policy in public housing may deteriorate into a situation where integration is the theory and segregation is the fact.

The sum of the whole matter is that the Federal Government through its housing agencies must reckon with the restrictive market it helped strengthen and create. That reckoning must, or at least ought to, comprehend dissemination of information and a positive invitation to Negroes telling them that they are not only free to purchase and rent, but that their occupancy is welcome, indeed desirable. And just as the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity has sought and secured Plans for Progress from industrialists, so the President's housing committee ought to seek and secure like plans for progress from urban and suburban builders and developers. Anything less than a full exertion of Federal power will almost certainly result in only a sterile tokenism in occupancy which will salve the conscience and alleviate the symptoms while the disease rages unchecked. And, of course, the full exertion of Federal power cannot be accomplished until all housing over which controls can be exercised is brought within the purview of the Order. Pursuit of any other course puts the Federal Government in the indefensible and ridiculous position of frowning on discrimination in a comparatively small segment, and of condoning it in the larger share, of the housing market.

The primary responsibility of government -- local, state and Federal -- for asserting leadership heightens the necessity for creative action by voluntary groups; there is no substitute for voluntary action in our pluralistic society. It is obvious that while such groups must continue, and step up, their pressure for additional and more complete local and state legislation and, above all, for an expanded Order that will encompass all housing over which Federal control can be exercised, their duty will not be done if they confine themselves to such activities.

The fair housing councils of my city perform a valuable function by the educational campaigns they conduct to smooth acceptance of the Negro newcomer to urban and suburban neighborhoods and by bringing together willing sellers, or landlords, and home seeking Negro buyers or tenants. Other groups publicize names and locations of FHA tracts and listings of repossessed housing with the inferential invitation to Negroes to purchase these homes. All of these agencies spend a great deal of time informing real estate brokers and builders of their responsibilities, and liabilities, under state law and federal regulations. They also find it necessary and advisable to keep a sharp lookout for highway construction routes; our experience is that if you knew nothing else about our cities, you could locate the areas of Negro residence by following one of our high speed freeways through a metropolitan area.

- 42 -

Another singular, and I believe too much neglected, task for voluntary organizations, particularly those with access to the Negro community, is that of formulating effective appeals to Negroes to take advantage of opportunities that are now open and those which the Order will open for purchase or rental in formerly closed neighborhoods. Apathy, indifference and fear must be overcome and as those bogeymen are vanquished and Negroes do move to new communities, other voluntary groups must find ways and means of stemming flight and preventing Negro inundation. And if urban redevelopment is to take on a new character of furthering integration, there must be a far greater and more perceptive participation in the formulation of workable plans on a local level.

Nor should we neglect the lessons taught by direct action groups. Their dramatization of the deep-seated conflicts in our society by their sit-ins, their picket lines, their Operation Window Shop, and similar devices have done much to quicken conscience and arouse the indifferent. They have summoned many to our cause. They will summon many more where many are needed.

In these swiftly changing times, voluntary groups should re-evaluate their programs and techniques in light of the changed thrust of Federal policy. Obviously there can be no overall national pattern for action; there must be an accommodation to local situations dependent on the lack, or existence, of state laws or city ordinances, and on local attitudes. Above all, the temptation to regard the Presidential Order as a cure-all or as a substitute for voluntary action must be resisted. It is equally important to realize what we learned by bitter experience in the school cases that the first reaction to a social reform is, more often than not, a reflex of violent resistance and a hardened determination to cling to old ways. Voluntary groups must not be dismayed by that attitude. They must act with renewed vigor in the face of opposition.

Because it lies beyond the scope of my topic, I have not dealt with the sufficiency of Federal, state or private enterprise housing programs to meet the ever expanding need for middle and lower income housing in the nation at large. But I know full well that just as we have learned that we cannot have fair employment unless we have full employment, so we cannot hope for fulfillment of fair housing policies and objectives until we meet the need, the housing needs of all Americans. Nor have I been charged here with the commission to comment on the perfectly obvious fact that a measure of discrimination will persist as long as the median income of the Negro family remains at one-half that of the white American family. I can only say that we -- all of us -- will be derelict unless we give serious attention to these concurrent problems through membership in and assistance to organizations primarily concerned with them.

In hasty summary, the essence of the problem confronting us is that of expanding governmental safeguards against further intensification of residential segregation and of securing and utilizing governmental initiative and leadership against the restrictive practices of the housing market, inspired by and more doubly effective by creative action of voluntary groups professing and effectuating the aims of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing. And we must ever bear in mind that the urgency of the situation requires immediate and Intensive correlation of those aims. To borrow a phrase, we must get the country moving or face the dismal prospect that yesterday's failings will flower into tomorrow's prevailing practices.

- 43 -

APPENDIX A - -

Provisions of Executive Order No. 11063

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN HOUSING

Signed and Put Into Effect Nov. 20, 1962

(Based on an analysis by Joseph B. Robison, chairman, NCDH Legal Committee)

**Coverage:** All Federal agencies involved in the provision, rehabilitation or operation of housing or related facilities are directed to prevent discrimination in the sale or rental of residential property and related facilities, including vacant land, under four classifications: 1) property that is owned or operated by the Federal Government (principally housing repossessed by the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans Administration, and housing on military or other Government installations); 2) property that is "provided" by loans or contributions from the Federal Government (low-rent public housing, and other direct loan programs such as housing for the elderly, college dormitories, and middle-income housing); 3) property that is provided by Government-insured (FHA) or guaranteed (VA) loans, or which is otherwise secured by Government credit; and 4) property that is obtained from a local government agency receiving aid from the Federal Government (urban renewal).

Except for housing owned or operated by the Federal Government, discrimination is not specifically barred in existing federally-aided housing or in such housing contracted for prior to Nov. 20, 1962.

With regard to existing housing, however, the Federal agencies are directed to use their good offices and to take appropriate action, including litigation, if required, to end discriminatory practices.

Lending institutions are covered only with respect to federally-insured loans.

**Implementation:** Primary responsibility for obtaining compliance with the Order is placed on the various Federal agencies for the housing programs they administer. Each was directed to adopt, within 30 days after Nov. 20, rules and regulations for carrying out the Order. The four major agencies (Urban Renewal, Public Housing, FHA and VA) had adopted their first set of rules by Dec. 5. Their provisions are included in this analysis.

The Order established the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing to serve, in effect, as an overall "watchdog." It is composed of the Secretaries of Treasury, Defense and Agriculture, the Attorney General, the Housing and Home Finance Administrator, the Veterans Administrator, the Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, a member of the President's executive staff, and such public members as the President may appoint. The member of the President's staff will serve as chairman and executive director.

The President's committee is to coordinate Federal activities under the Order, to examine all agency rules, to make recommendations, and to report to the President. It is also to encourage educational programs by private groups.

Primary responsibility for the committee's work resides in an executive committee of the chairman and two public members.

The Federal agencies are directed to co-

operate with the President's committee, to report their implementation programs, and to give the committee such information as it requests.

The committee or any of the agencies may hold public or private hearings. Implementation by conciliation is emphasized.

**Penalties:** However, if conciliation efforts fail, penalties may include: 1) cancellation of the contract for Federal aid; 2) barring the violator from further aid; and 3) refusing to approve a lending institution as a beneficiary under any program.

Violations may be referred to the Attorney General "for such civil or criminal action as he may deem appropriate." Criminal sanctions apply in cases of fraud.

Any agency may invoke these sanctions against violators of the rules of another.

Major Programs

**FHA and VA:** A builder is covered from the first time he seeks FHA or VA assistance or approval. Thus, in order to receive subdivision "feasibility" approval in the early development stages, he must agree to open occupancy - similarly when "commitments" are sought for a specific number of houses. The Order applies to all applications for commitments received in the local FHA or VA office Nov. 21 and thereafter. In the present transition stage, some houses in an FHA- or VA-approved subdivision may be covered, whereas others in the same subdivision may not be. For example, if the builder received FHA commitments prior to Nov. 20 on half of the houses he plans for the tract, those houses are not covered. If he applies for commitment for the balance of the houses on the same tract after Nov. 20, they are covered, regardless of earlier FHA- or VA-subdivision approval.

Houses eligible for FHA insurance may or may not advertise as such. With the exception of some few localities, the subdivision developer - i.e., the speculative builder who builds, for example, ten or more homes - needs to be able to say that his homes are eligible for FHA or VA guarantees to market them successfully. In most localities, FHA or VA means lower down payments and longer mortgage terms.

In addition to the exemption for existing housing, the FHA and VA rules provide that the Order shall not apply to one- or two-family dwellings which have been occupied by the seller. Thus, even individuals buying homes with FHA or VA financing after Nov. 20, 1962, will not be subject to the Order when they resell or rent. The small amount of Government control over the individual home owner and the size of the policing job necessary to check the tremendous number of individual transfers motivated this exclusion.

FHA also has a substantial program affecting rental housing. For example, there are more than 400,000 units of such housing now in existence as a result of the now expired Section 608 program. FHA maintains a continuing control over this kind of

housing. A representative of FHA sits on the development's board and FHA has power to take over the corporation if its regulations are violated. In addition, there is rental and co-op housing under Sections 207 and 213 to which FHA retains a continuing relationship.

While existing rental housing is exempted from binding coverage, study is being given to ways in which nondiscrimination may be required in this area.

Complaints may be lodged with the local FHA or VA insuring office director. Appeals can be taken to the Commissioner.

**Urban Renewal:** Urban renewal projects which have not had their loan and grant contract finally executed by Nov. 20 are covered. This includes all residential construction, commercial establishments and publicly-owned facilities in a project area.

The URA regulations also include a new policy with regard to non-cash local grants-in-aid. These are credits which a city may receive to offset its share of urban renewal costs because of public facilities, such as schools, parks, etc., supplied by the city which support the project. These facilities need not be on the urban renewal site. The rules require that they be open to all residents of the renewal area.

All contracts and deeds entered into in connection with a covered project must contain an affirmative open occupancy covenant which runs with the land.

The rules do not apply the Order to either site selection or relocation.

**Public Housing:** The Order covers all low-rent projects for which contracts for annual contributions of Federal funds were not authorized for execution before Nov. 21. This includes projects under preliminary loan contract. PHA estimates that approximately 70,000 units of the 100,000 units authorized by the Housing Act of 1961 are affected. Many anomalies exist here regarding the different rules that apply to existing and new housing. Eighty per cent of existing public housing is segregated and will remain so despite the fact that local housing authorities receive annual subsidy grants from the Federal Government. Litigation is expected in this area.

**Lending Institutions:** The Order bars discrimination by lending institutions only as to loans insured or guaranteed by the Federal Government, that is, loans in the FHA and VA programs.

It had been urged that all financial institutions supervised by the Federal Government be covered. This would have included state savings and loan associations, all national banks as well as banks in the Federal Reserve System and under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

It should be noted that, on June 1, 1961, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which charters all Federal savings and loan associations, adopted a resolution opposing discrimination. However, this rule has not been implemented.

Reprinted from TRENDS IN HOUSING, Sept.-Oct., 1962

Publication of the National Committee Against Discrimination In Housing
426 West 58th Street, New York 19 - JUdson 6-3460

- 45 -

APPENDIX B - -

MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN HOUSING

Government Members

David L. Lawrence, Chairman-Director

Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury

Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture

John S. Gleason, Jr., Administrator of Veterans Affairs

Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the U. S.

Joseph P. McMurray, Chairman, Federal Home Loan Bank Board

Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense

Robert C. Weaver, Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency

Public Members

Jack T. Conway, Director, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO

Theodore A. Jones, Chicago insurance executive

Charles Keller, Jr., President, Keller Construction Co., New Orleans

Ferdinand Kramer, President, Draper & Kramer, Chicago

Cyril Magnin, businessman, San Francisco

Roland M. Sawyer, Housing Consultant, United Steelworkers of America

Earl B. Schwulst, Chairman of the Board, Bowery Savings Bank, New York

Lewis H. Weinstein, Attorney, Boston

Executive Committee

Mr. Lawrence

Mr. Jones

Mr. Weinstein

- 46 -

APPENDIX C - -

# Scoreboard
of
State Laws Affecting Discrimination in Housing

As of June 30, 1963

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">STATE</th><th colspan="6">COVERAGE</th><th rowspan="2">Official Enforcement Agency</th></tr><tr><th>Public Housing</th><th>Urban Renewal</th><th>FHA & VA</th><th>Private Housing</th><th>Real Est. Agents</th><th>Mortgage Lenders</th><th>Advertising</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Alaska</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>2. California</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>3. Colorado</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>4. Connecticut</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>5. Indiana</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Massachusetts</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>7. Michigan</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Minnesota</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>9. Montana</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10. New Hampshire</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11. New Jersey</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>12. New York</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>13. Oregon</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>14. Pennsylvania</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>15. Rhode Island</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>16. Wisconsin and Virgin Islands</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>

## NOTES

1. Idaho's law barring discrimination in public accommodations possibly applies to public housing according to the State's Attorney General.

2. Illinois prohibits restrictive covenants on urban redevelopment land.

3. Kansas and Alabama prohibit racial zoning.

4. The Washington State law prohibiting discrimination in government-aided housing, including that with FHA- or VA-guaranteed loans, was struck down by the State Supreme Court in 1961. In 1962, a lower court held that the state's law barring discrimination in places of public accommodation applies to the business operations of real estate brokers and salesmen. An appeal from this latter decision is pending in the Washington Supreme Court.

In addition, at least 55 cities in the United States have adopted ordinances or policy resolutions affecting discrimination in housing.

## DIGEST
### Laws Covering Private Housing

* **NEW YORK CITY.** Signed into law Dec. 30, 1957. Effective Apr. 1, 1958. Amended 1961 and 1962. **Coverage:** Sale or rental of all housing accommodations except the rental of an apartment in an owner-occupied duplex and the rental of rooms in private residences; activities of real estate operators and mortgage lenders; advertising. Provides for injunctive relief pending final determination of a complaint, after investigation establishes probable cause to credit the charge of discrimination. **Enforcement** by the New York City Commission on Human Rights, 80 Lafayette St., New York 13 - 566-2121.

* **PITTSBURGH.** Signed Dec. 8, 1958. Effective June 1, 1959. **Coverage:** Sales or rentals by persons who own or

control five or more housing units, anywhere in the city; residential building lots; all activities of real estate operators and mortgage lenders; advertising. **Enforcement** by the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 518 City-County Bldg., Pittsburgh 19, Pa. - AT 1-3900.

* **COLORADO.** Signed Apr. 10, 1959. Effective May 1, 1959. **Coverage:** sale or rental of all housing except "premises maintained by the owner or lessee as the household of his family"; vacant land; activities of real estate operators and mortgage lenders in all transactions involving housing covered by the statute; advertising. **Enforcement** by the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission, 328 State Services Bldg., 1525 Sherman St., Denver 3, Colo. - AC 2-9911.

* **MASSACHUSETTS.** Signed Apr. 22, 1959. Effective July 21, 1959. Amended 1960, 1961, 1963. **Coverage:** All publicly offered housing sales and rentals, except rental of a unit in an owner-occupied duplex and rental of rooms in private homes. Includes building lots. Real estate agents, mortgage lenders and advertising are covered. Provides for injunctive relief and revocation of licenses of brokers who refuse to obey an enforcement order. **Enforcement** by Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 41 Tremont St., Boston 8 - CA 7-3111.

* **CONNECTICUT.** Signed May 12, 1959. Effective Oct. 1, 1959. Amended 1961 and 1963. **Coverage:** All sales and rentals, except rental of a unit in an owner-occupied duplex and rental of rooms in (Continued on next page)

- 47 -

private homes. Includes building lots. Applies to real estate agents and lending institutions. Enforcement by the Connecticut Commission on Civil Rights, State Office Bldg., Hartford 15, Conn. - JA 7-6341, Ext. 2310.

* OREGON. Signed May 27, 1959. Effective Aug. 5, 1959. Coverage: Any person engaged in the business of selling or leasing real property, including vacant land and commercial space; advertising. A separate statute provides for the revocation of licenses of real estate operators who violate the fair housing law. Enforcement is by the Civil Rights Division, Oregon State Bureau of Labor, 1216 S.W. Hall, Portland 1, Ore. - CA 6-2161.

* PENNSYLVANIA. Signed Feb. 28, 1961. Effective Sept. 1, 1961. Coverage: Sale or rental of all housing accommodations except owner-occupied one- and two-family houses and except the rental of rooms in private homes; residential building lots; activities of real estate operators and mortgage lenders in transactions involving housing covered by the statute; advertising. Enforcement by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 1401 Labor and Industry Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. - CE 8-5151.

* NEW YORK STATE. Signed Apr. 11, 1961. Effective Sept. 1, 1961. Amended 1963. Coverage: Sale or rental of all housing except rental of an apartment in an owner-occupied duplex and rental of rooms in private homes; includes commercial space. Applies to real estate agents, mortgage lenders and advertising. Enforcement by New York State Commission for Human Rights, 270 Broadway, New York 7 - BA 7-1616.

* MINNESOTA. Signed Apr. 17, 1961. Effective Dec. 31, 1962. Coverage: Sale or rental of all housing accommodations, with the following exceptions: 1) rental of an apartment in an owner-occupied duplex; 2) rental

of rooms in private residences; and 3) owner-occupied single-family houses which are not defined as "publicly-assisted housing." All houses with outstanding FHA- or VA-insured mortgages or which have received other forms of public assistance are covered by the law. Also covers commercial space; vacant land; activities of real estate operators and mortgage lenders in transactions involving property covered by the statute; advertising. Enforcement by the Minnesota State Commission Against Discrimination, 200 State Capitol, St. Paul 1, Minn. - CA 2-3013.

* NEW HAMPSHIRE. Signed June 30, 1961. Effective August 29, 1961. Coverage: Bars discrimination "in the matter of rental or occupancy of a dwelling in a building containing more than one dwelling"; provides that violations are punishable by fines of from $10 to $100; bars civil actions for damages. Enforcement: No administrative machinery is provided.

* NEW JERSEY. Signed Sept. 13, 1961. Effective the same date. Coverage: Sale or rental of houses in developments of ten or more located on contiguous land, and sale or rental of apartments in buildings containing three or more units, exempting owner-occupied three-family houses. Also excludes rental of rooms in private residences. Covers vacant land and commercial space. Previous statute covering all publicly-assisted housing, including FHA and VA, remains in force. Applies to real estate brokers and mortgage lenders in the handling of transactions involving property covered by the statute. Bars discriminatory advertising. Enforcement by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, 1100 Raymond Blvd., Newark 5 - MA 4-1414.

(Continued on next page)

- 48 -

* **TOLEDO, Ohio.** Signed Sept. 25, 1961. Effective Oct. 25, 1961. **Coverage:** All sales of real property. Rentals in buildings of 5 or more units. **Enforcement** by the Toledo Board of Community Relations, 565 N. Erie St., Toledo 2 - CH 4-1961.

* **ALASKA.** Adopted Apr. 3, 1962. Effective Apr. 4, 1962. **Coverage:** "Public housing, all forms of publicly-assisted housing, and any housing accommodations offered for sale, rent or lease." Violators are liable to 30 days imprisonment, or a fine of not more than $500, or both. (The Alaska law is an amendment to the state's public accommodations act.) Legislation was enacted in 1963 to provide for enforcement by a State Commission for Human Rights.

* **CALIFORNIA.** Passed by the Legislature June 21, 1963. **Coverage:** Sale or rental of all housing accommodations, exempting structures with four or less dwelling units. However, all housing built with government aid, such as FHA and VA, is covered. Provides for injunctive relief and for damages up to $500. **Enforcement** by the California Fair Employment Practices Commission, 455 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco 1 or 107 S. Broadway, Los Angeles 12.

* **VIRGIN ISLANDS.** Signed into law June 9, 1961. **Coverage:** Provides that no person "engaged in selling, leasing, or renting any item of real estate shall, directly or indirectly, deny any other person the right to buy, lease, or rent any item of real estate on account of race, creed, or national origin. Prohibits the use of the "private club" device for evasion of the law. Provides for punitive damages up to $5,000 and/or a fine of not more than $2,000. **Enforcement** by the Commissioner of Public Safety, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas.

* **PHILADELPHIA, Penna.** Signed June 10, 1963. **Coverage:** Sale or rental of all housing except owner-occupied one- and two-family houses. Applies to real estate brokers in transactions involving covered housing, and to lending insti-

tutions with respect to all housing. Violators are subject to a fine up to $300, or 90 days in jail, or both. **Enforcement** by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, 625 City Hall Annex, Philadelphia 7 - MU 6-9700.

* **ALBUQUERQUE, N. M.** Passed by City Commission June 18, 1963. **Coverage:** Sale or rental of all housing, exempting only the subletting of a portion of an apartment or house occupied by a single family. Includes building lots. Applies to lending institutions. Violators are subject to a fine up to $300. **Enforcement** by a Fair Housing Advisory Board, members of which serve without pay.

* **SCHENECTADY, N. Y.** Also passed in 1963 an ordinance which applies to all housing except owner-occupied buildings with three or less dwelling units.

- 49 -

SPONSORS OF THE 1963 NCDH CONFERENCE

Organizational Sponsors

American Civil Liberties Union

American Jewish Committee

American Jewish Committee, New York Chapter

American Veterans Committee

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Dressmakers' Joint Council, ILGWU

National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice

National Council of Churches, Department of
Racial and Cultural Relations

Protestant Episcopal Church, National Council

Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Commission
on Social Action of Reform Judaism

United Auto Workers of America

United Church Board of Homeland Ministries

United Church of Christ, Council for Christian
Social Action

United Presbyterian Church, Board of Christian Education

Individual Sponsors

William D. Barber

The Rev. James R. Copeland

Christine Ray Davis

John B. Duncan

J. Lawrence Duncan

Individual Sponsors, Cont'd.

Irving M. Engel

Irving Jay Fain

Ben Fischer

Victor Fischer

Donald S. Frey

Seth M. Glickenhaus

Karl D. Gregory

Eunice and George Grier

George E. C. Hayes

Mrs. Thomas B. Hess

D. John Heyman

Oliver W. Hill

Irene Hypps

Wagner D. Jackson

Mrs. Reginald Johnson

R. Frank Jones

John R. Kellam

John D. Lange

Marjorie Levy

George W. Lucas

Louis E. Martin

B. T. McGraw

Anne M. Montero

Mollie Moon

Amicus Most

Burton B. Moyer, Jr.

Mrs. Edward R. Murrow

Marilynne and Charles Recker

Mr. and Mrs. Louis L. Redding

Ira S. Robbins

Philip G. Sadler

Howard J. Samuels

Roland M. Sawyer

Roger Schafer

Boris Shishkin

Granville C. Smith

Albert L. Thompson

Marietta Tree

Irene Tinker Walker

Stuart E. Wallace

James Washington

Walter E. Washington

Josephine Wilkins

Marian and Alfred Yankauer

Charles S. Zimmeman