Tag: affirmative action

Notes for speech on the history of Title VII

Title: Unknown

Date: Sometime after 1991 based on reference to 1991 Civil Rights Act

Audience:  Unknown

Link to original:  https://petercrobertsonarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/speech-fragment-scanned.pdf

In a sense the legal history should tell us what happened when T7 was created from the primordial oooz — from amorphous cosmos — the unformed mass.  When the Congress said “let there be light” what did they mean.

But I have decided to do something else.  I was out there in that primordial ooz — before the light was turned on — serving from 1963 ([illeg] I went to EEOC in 1967) as E.D. of the M.C.H.R. …. Trying occasionally to light a light but more often cursing the darkness.

[Because] much of the [legal history] + much of the early actions at EEOC involved attempts to create a law — a structure — a process that would [benefit] from the failures of and remove the limits of the states[,] I think it might be useful to start with a discussion of how the world looked to a state agency in 1963-1964.

Chron

Job week before [Birmingham] fire hoses.

Report after.

$12,000 budget

Governor ½|½  à Wallace; Ross Barnett; Orvell Fairbush

Scope of what we did was very [limited]

Any attempt (by those who file) to broaden was subject to political [attack]

  • Others similarly situated

phone call to CHAIR

  • Encourage filing

phone call to GOVERNOR

  • Initiate
    • Carson[’]s pledge on new money will not be used
  • If you ran into opposition you backed OFF
  • No litigation on vindicate powers. Surprize when arrive at EEOC to discover [illeg].

[Marginal note]:  New York amend rather than fight

  • And most important no [definition] of [discrimination]. 2 aspects
  • Procedural Philadelphia story
  • What did your [investigator] look for

⬇

Conciliation while under investigation

No body of law

Nothing called A.A. [assume “affirmative action”].

Harold Fleming

When I [arrived] at EEOC three dimension[s]

A.  Defend its process

Bill[’]s article

(Still true?)

B. Define discrimination

Norton 20

C. Legis[lative] hist[ory] that is most important

D. Impact on AA

  1. OFCCP
  2. EEOC focus on individual case[s] not systems
  3. 1991 C.R. ACT punish > d systems.

[Marginal note at “2” above]: Tell S. Story.  With occasional exceptions in one or two reg[ional] [offices]

⇓

Chronic refusal to look for + remedy systemic discrim[ination].

Speech: Missouri State Curriculum

Title: “Challenges That Must Be Met In Making Education Work In A Democracy When That Democracy Faces Controversies Such As Civil Rights.”

Date: 1964

Audience:  Unstated, but from context likely Missouri state education officials.

Link to original:  https://petercrobertsonarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/curriculum-speech.pdf

It’s not often that I get a chance to hear the critique of previous speakers, tailor my remarks, and know what to say and what to avoid.  For example, I sat up until 2 o’clock last night preparing a very impressive list of proposed ideas for curriculum changes you might consider and I have now been told that you probably won’t do anything about them.  I’m not easily discouraged.

It’s certainly a pleasure for me to come here to discuss this topic with you.  I had thought I was going to discuss one topic and when the program arrived in the mail the topic that I was assigned was different — it was: “Challenges That Must Be Met In Making Democracy Work In an Era Marked by Civil Rights Controversy.”  I have taken the liberty of changing that a little bit. I have rearranged the word order: “Challenges That Must Be Met In Making Education Work In A Democracy When That Democracy Faces Controversies Such As Civil Rights.”  A slight change but I think after I looked over the outline that I had written that it seemed to fit a little better.

Because I interpret the scope of your organization as dealing primarily with curriculum I will direct my remarks primarily toward ideas that might be in your mind in developing curriculum in the future.

I realize full well that you probably can’t look at curriculum as an isolated item from the rest of the whole school administrative program.  Certainly you cannot talk about new curriculum ideas unless you have an idea where you’re going to get the people who will be able to teach them, or the facilities if need be, such as language laboratories if you are going to undertake a concentrated language instructional program.  You can’t do these in a vacuum without thinking of personnel, equipment and all other aspects of school administration, but, with that warning, I will aim my remarks primarily at curriculum.

Continue reading “Speech: Missouri State Curriculum”