WILL THE REAL “FORCED HOUSING” PLEASE STAND UP

Title: WILL THE REAL “FORCED HOUSING” PLEASE STAND UP

Date: Sometime between 1963 and 1967.

Overview: PCR debates real estate developer – and fair housing opponent – Ray Brummet.

Link to original: https://petercrobertsonarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/will-the-real-forced-housing-please-stand-up.pdf

Excerpt:

Mr. Brummet is in the process of constructing in Jefferson City one of its largest and most attractive suburban developments. … [He] has talked at length about not interfering and forcing something upon the owner of real property but yet he knows and I know that in establishing this subdivision he was protected by the knowledge that government will protect him, that society has made certain value judgments and will exercise them to protect him from anyone who would buy property in that subdivision and use it in such a way that would be harmful to the residential character of the neighborhood. Thus, Mr. Brummet, if I were to purchase one of your houses I would be forced to refrain from utilizing it to establish a filling station, a vulcanizing plant for putting retreads on old tires, a bar or a brothel. Mr. Brummet I am sure does not oppose this force being placed upon me. It seems to me that the same society which gives meaning and strength to the term private property by protecting it with police power and which forces the owner of the property not to use it in certain ways can also make the policy decision that it is in the interest of the kind of society which he wants to say that the individual can continue to dispose of his property in an unfettered fashion with the sole exception that he cannot discriminate in making that disposition because of the race of the party to whom he is selling.

Full text:

It is always a pleasure for me to appear on a platform with Ray Brummet, one of our leading real estate dealers in Jefferson City and perhaps one of the leading real estate dealers in the nation in terms of his honest willingness to publicly admit and state the point of view of the real estate industry. While I will tonight rather strongly attack some of the things which he has said because I believe they are based on misconception, I want to make it clear that I am in no way attacking him personally for I have the greatest respect for his ability as a real estate operator, for his talents as a businessman who is, as he suggested, in this field for the sole purpose of making money and not for the purpose of engaging in any social experimentation. He has outlined to you tonight the classic statement of the position of the real estate industry a position which some members of that profession sometimes adher[e] to more in theory than in practice — but nonetheless the basic theories on which they operate when they discuss problems of integrated housing.

Because Mr. Brummet has placed so much emphasis in his remarks upon the “social significance of real property” in a capitalistic free enterprise system and because he has based so much of his own opinions, views, and actions upon his own desire to make money I thought I would start out this evening by giving you a few ideas on my own frame of reference as to the “social significance of real property”, and the importance of deeply reconsidering the way we currently handle real property transactions in a free enterprise capitalistic economy. Continue reading “WILL THE REAL “FORCED HOUSING” PLEASE STAND UP”

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

OFCCP
EEOC focus on individual case[s] not systems
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”