systematic expression, as in the well-publicized program in Grosse Pointe, Mich. There, discrimination covered the full ambit of "race, color, religion, and national origin," and it was practiced with mathematical exactitude. Two groups, the Grosse Pointe Brokers Association and the Grosse Pointe Property Owners Association had established and maintained a screening system to winnow out would-be purchasers who were considered "undesirable." As Michigan Corp. and Security Commissioner Lawrence Gubow put it to the Commission: 12 A passing grade was 50 points. However, those of Polish descent had to score 55 points; southern Europeans, including those of Italian, Greek, Spanish, or Lebanese origin had to score 65 points, and those of the Jewish faith had to score 85 points. Negroes and orientals were excluded entirely.

Similar exclusions are accomplished in other communities, though usually with less refinement than in Grosse Pointe.18

The financial community, upon which mortgage financing-and hence the bulk of home purchasing and home building-depends, also acts to a large extent on the premise that only a homogeneous neighborhood can offer an economically sound investment. For this reason, plus the fear of offending their other clients, many mortgage-lending institutions refuse to provide home financing for houses in a “mixed" neighborhood. The persistent stereotypes of certain minority groups as poor credit risks also block the flow of credit, although these stereotypes have often been proved unjustified.1

14

15

Finally, private builders often adopt what they believe are the views of those to whom they expect to sell and of the banks upon whose credit their own operations depend.16 In short, as the Commission on Race and Housing has concluded, "it is the real estate brokers, builders, and mortgage finance institutions, which translate prejudice into discriminatory action." " Thus, at every level of the private housing market members of minority groups meet mutually reinforcing and often unbreakable barriers of rejection.

17

This discrimination is not entirely a manifestation of personal prejudice. It rests also on the belief that property values necessarily go down and neighborhoods deteriorate when their racial composition changes. Indeed, this sometimes happens. But as the Commission pointed out in its 1959 Report:

18

[T]here is considerable evidence that the standards of a neighborhood and the property values need not be depreciated by the presence of Negroes, [but] these fears by their own force can become self-fulfilling prophecies. The fear produces panic-selling, which in turn results in the very depreciation in the housing market and chaos in the community that is feared. In a real sense, the only thing people in this situation have to fear is fear itself.

While the housing industry is basically private, government at all levels is involved in varying degrees. A substantial amount of housing for low-income families, for example, is built, owned, and controlled by local public agencies. Another kind of public involvement lies in the exercise of eminent domain to facilitate both public and private projects. The Federal Government, of course, is deeply involved. It is a principal supporter and regulator of the financial community. Its programs of mortgage insurance and mortgage guarantees have been a bulwark to the private housing industry, stimulating the great expansion of that industry and revolutionizing its practices. In a more direct way, the Federal Government has initiated and supported the great bulk of lowrent public housing, slum clearance and urban renewal programs. Indeed, it has been said of housing, "there is no nondefense segment of American economic life so dependent on the Federal Government.” 1o As of June 30, 1959, $105 billion of public credit and money had been used in Federal housing and related programs.20 Federal funds and influence, in sum, pervade the private housing market, but they have not been used extensively to restrain the discrimination that flourishes there. Seventeen States and numerous cities have enacted laws and ordinances prohibiting discrimination in housing."1 Congress has remained silent.

THE LAW AND HOUSING DISCRIMINATION

The 14th amendment signified the Nation's resolve that no State should deny "the equal protection of the laws" to any person, regardless of race. And the Supreme Court has said: 22

It cannot be doubted that among the civil rights intended to be protected from discriminatory state action by the Fourteenth Amendment are the rights to acquire, enjoy, own, and dispose of property. Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers of that Amendment as an essential pre-condition to the realization of other basic civil rights and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee.

It is clear that no State or city may practice discrimination in housing. The Supreme Court has held that State agencies are prohibited from applying regulations that prescribe on racial grounds where people may live." And it has held that the 14th amendment prohibits the courts, as instrumentalities of the States, from enforcing private racially restrictive covenants." Similar prohibitions apply to the Federal Gov

25

ernment and its courts, as well.2 Racial discrimination by the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has said, is "unthinkable." But the Constitution does not reach purely private discrimination. It is only when government acts that the Constitution commands equal treatment. A provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,27 still in effect, proclaims that: 28

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

This language suggests a clear governmental policy of equal opportunity, but the extent and scope of its application as law has not, to this day, been fully defined.

It is clear, then, that government may not itself discriminate. But with respect to the use of Federal credit in support of private discrimination, the constitutional mandate is yet unclear.29 This, however, does not end the matter. Rather, it poses the question whether, as a matter of national policy, the Federal Government can permit itself to be involved in the denial of equal opportunity; whether the Federal Government, which has established national housing programs to achieve a national purpose, should not take affirmative steps to move toward the achievement of equal opportunity in housing for all Americans. The Supreme Court has recognized that "Equality in the enjoyment of property rights" is "an essential pre-condition to the realization of other basic civil rights." 30 If the achievement of this "essential pre-condition" is not here the explicit command of the Constitution, it is nonetheless its promise.

THE PLEDGE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

31

The Housing Act of 1949 opened a new era in housing. There, Congress set for itself and the Nation the goal of "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." " This goal which Congress announced is more than a vague expression of hope. It is a pledge of the Federal Government that its resources will be utilized and the goal achieved. Insofar as it is a pledge to assist in the achievement of a decent home for all Americans, both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government have affirmed a policy of equal opportunity in housing which may be used as a standard against which

to measure the Government's practices. Some measures, mainly administrative, have been taken toward achieving this goal of equal opportunity, but the practice cannot yet be said to have matched the promise. To the extent that discrimination is practiced in connection with Federal housing programs, the obligation of the Federal Government remains unsatisfied. For this pledge was made to all Americans and it was to all Americans that President Kennedy referred when he declared before Congress: "We must still redeem this pledge."

32

THE COMMISSION'S STUDIES

The Commission's studies in the field of housing are undertaken pursuant to its statutory mandates to:

83

(2) study and collect information concerning legal developments constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution; and

(3) appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to equal protection of the laws under the Constitution.

Insofar as government is directly responsible for discrimination in the housing field, denials of equal protection are involved. Commission study of local governmental participation in housing therefore rests on the first of the statutory mandates quoted above. The duty of appraising the laws and policies of the Federal Government is the main emphasis of the Commission's studies. As has been pointed out, Federal activities permeate virtually every aspect of the housing market; the laws and policies governing such activities therefore affect or potentially affect equal opportunity throughout the field of housing.

34

In its 1959 Report the Commission covered, at least briefly, most major aspects of the field of housing-private and public; local, State and Federal. Six recommendations were made; " only one has been put into effect.35 In this report the main emphasis is on the laws and policies of the Federal Government.

The relationship of the home mortgage industry and the Federal Government is examined in detail. In addition to continuing its study of such agencies as the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Veterans' Administration (VA), the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), and the Voluntary Home Mortgage Credit Program (VHMCP), the Commission has also examined Federal policies con

cerning the financial community, as these policies bear upon discrimination in housing.

Another important aspect of the Commission's housing study over the past 2 years has been the urban renewal programs of Federal, State, and local government. The Commission has also continued to devote attention to the Federal low-rent housing program and has undertaken to examine the Federal program concerning housing for the elderly. Because of increasing State and local activity in the housing field and because many Federal programs operate through local authorities, the Commission has devoted some attention to State and local activities affecting equal opportunity in housing.

The development of the Federal Government's role in housing is the first subject discussed-for here, more than in most areas, the present role of the Federal Government cannot be fully understood until we know what has gone before. Federal policies with respect to housing and equality of housing opportunity have emerged from past experiments. It is a dynamic, continuing process, and the past and present constitute the foundation upon which the future will be built.