Floyd A. Young

John L. Newby

"The colored man in uniform is expected by the War Department to develop a high morale in a community that offers him nothing but humiliation and mistreatment. . . . The War Department has failed to secure to the colored soldier protection against violence on the part of civilian police and to secure justice in the courts in communities near-by to Southern stations. . . . On the training fields the development of morale does not take into consideration Jim-Crow laws and customs. The "Four Freedoms" cannot be enjoyed under Jim-Crow influences."

-Brigadier General Benjamin O. Davis, Sr.

With these words, the first black general in the United States military, Brigadier General Benjamin O. Davis, Sr., accurately expressed the deep-felt resentment held by virtually every black military member during World War II. Although blacks were members of the military, they continued to be subject to the indignities of discrimination in the form of poor treatment by local communities, the military establishment *84 (including superiors, contemporaries, and subordinates), and Jim Crow military policies. General Davis, along with many other military and civilian proponents of military equality, fought discrimination on all fronts. From privates in the field reporting discriminatory treatment up the chain of command, to A. Philip Randolph's demand for an Executive Order, virtually all segments of black society recognized the irony of black soldiers fighting for the freedom of oppressed peoples abroad while simultaneously being subjected to oppression themselves. The result of the struggle for the Right to Fight and equality in the military, Executive Order 9981, not only began a new day for blacks in the military, but had implications in the fight for broader civil rights. The Executive Order was a presidential proclamation of the right to bear arms for one's country as a civil right. It also provided ammunition for advocates presenting subsequent challenges against discrimination in other contexts, namely education. The change from segregation to integration in the military represented more than a mere change of military policy; it represented a change in the understanding of the social fabric of our nation. As such, Executive Order 9981 was an important precursor to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and subsequent efforts to achieve equality of opportunity in America.

The purpose of this Note is to bring Executive Order 9981 and the struggle to desegregate the military into conversation with the literature on Brown and subsequent civil rights gains in the sphere of race and education. In its attempt to recognize the importance of the parallel demands for civil rights made to the executive and judicial branches during the period penned as the Forgotten Years of the Civil Rights movement, current literature tends to focus primarily on the importance of only one of A. Philip Randolph's petitions to the executive branch, the March on Washington Movement (MOWM). Many commentators view the MOWM as both the ultimate expression of African American rights consciousness during the war period and as a key step in the civil rights fight which led to the Brown decision. However, if, as it has been *85 suggested, the importance of the MOWM to the Brown-era civil rights movement has almost been forgotten, the even more effectual Committee Against Jim Crow in Military Training (CAJC) and the resulting Executive Order 9981 have been overlooked. The efforts to achieve equality in the military during the Forgotten Years, as well as the postwar petition for military integration by Randolph, were necessary precursors to advancements made during the Brown-era civil rights movement. While Executive Order 8802 was an initial step in the right direction and provided the necessary initial momentum, Executive Order 9981 made a more concrete step toward integration in American society and provided essential momentum for the Brown decision. (continued)

Here is a link where you can send a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: http://www.ProgSec.Org/l.aspx?a=m06DurbanHR1___DurbanHR

Debra A. Milleson

The fundamental principle underlying basic economic theory--the law of supply and demand--applies to the labor market as it does to other areas of commercial endeavor. When the supply of labor exceeds demand, wages are relatively depressed; when demand ex-ceeds supply, wages rise. When an employer discriminates against a particular segment of the labor pool, for example, minorities, its supply of workers diminishes, and, accordingly, its wage costs rise. These costs are then passed along to the consumers, including the federal government.

Through the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (the Procurement Act), Congress authorized the President and his subordinates to purchase goods and services for the Executive Branch. The Act further authorizes the President to prescribe "such policies and directives, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as he shall deem necessary to effectuate the provisions of said Act." The President has authority to exercise this power subject to broad statutory guidelines, set out in section 201 of the Act, which establish that government procurement policy, "to the extent . . . advantageous to the Government," shall promote "economy, efficiency, or service." Thus, the procurement statute itself recognizes the broad discretion of the executive to determine appropriate procurement policies within the framework established by Congress.

The Executive Order assists the government in reducing expenditures and promoting greater efficiency. It requires the government to consider all qualified individuals for employment; to choose among them without regard to race, gender, or national origin; and to engage in outreach to encourage the broadest possible group of qualified individuals to enter the supply or applicant pool. In so doing, it advances the purposes of the Procurement Act.

The first Executive Orders addressing discrimination in private sector employment grew out of the unique labor market conditions created by America's entry into World War II. In 1941, President Roosevelt issued two Orders-- Executive Order 8802 and Executive Order 9001 -- which required that all defense contracts contain a clause pursuant to which the contractor agreed to refrain from discriminating on the basis of race or national origin. Where such a clause was not set forth expressly, Executive Order 9001 directed that it be incorporated by reference. These Orders found their basis in the President's war powers and were not challenged either in Congress or the courts. In 1943, the President extended the scope of Executive Order 8802 by requiring that all government contracts contain a nondiscrimination clause. Although the new Order extended to non-defense contracts, this expansion was grounded in the overall war effort and the need to maximize the pool of workers available for defense production. What began with war production was perpetuated by President Truman through a series of post-war Executive Orders. The responsibility for obtaining compliance with these nondiscrimination provisions was consolidated in the Committee on Government Contract Compliance created by Executive Order 10,308. The basis for this order, like those preceding it, continued to be the President's authority to provide for the national defense.(continued)

Kirwan Institute for the
Study of Race and Ethnicity
 

The impact of the recent economic downturn has had a profound effect on the U.S. and global economy. While the troubles plaguing our economy have been devastating to Americans of all walks of life, the devastation is not even. The brunt of unemployment, layoffs, social service and education budget cuts, foreclosures, and bankruptcies will be borne by groups already marginalized or undervalued by the mainstream economy: people of color, women, manufacturing employees, rural residents, people with disabilities, and the like. For example, United for a Fair Economy found that although the U.S. has been in a recession for more than a year, people of color have been in a recession for nearlyfive years, and have entered a depression during the current economic crisis. Between 2000 and 2007, median black family incomes dropped 1.0% for all families the overall decline is the first in a business cycle of this length since WWII. African American homeownership gains were reversed after 2004; they have reverted to 2000 levels.

As we rebuild the economy, we have to do it in a way that is consistent with American values, and that is open and fair to all populations, so that no group is limited by the plan's design or effect. Policy makers must recognize that "universal" policies fail to acknowledge how people are differently situated. In fact, treating people who are situated differently as if they were equally able to access the benefits of "universal" policies can lead to greater inequities. In contrast to a universal approach, we advocate a "targeted universal" approach in which the needs of the particular are uplifted while recognizing that we are all part of the same social fabric. Targeted universal policies are inclusive, yet they are sensitive to the reality that the labor market and other aspects of our lives are unevenly segmented. A targeted approach takes everyone's situated unevenness into consideration, as well as the condition of the most marginalized.

The new President and his Administration have begun to act, and we applaud their attempts to craft a bipartisan economic recovery plan. Some of their plans seem to be attentive to unevenness in our society, with a goal to making some corrections. For example, 10% of the rural infrastructure grants (housing, community facilities, business and utilities) are targeted to persistent poverty counties (Title I, Sec. 105). The Home Investments Partnership Program language states that, "as part of the review, the Secretary shall ensure equitable distribution of  funds and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural communities with a special priority on areas that have suffered from excessive job loss and foreclosures."

Other examples are sprinkled about the ARRA.² We believe this principle can more robustly inform federal recovery policy and advocacy. Our concern is that a long-term recovery effort (and indeed, all future federal policy), if not deliberately crafted to include all of our people and all of our communities, could maintain, or even worsen, the uneven effects of the recession. For example, at press time, $29 billion of the ARRA is allocated for road and bridge construction; $8.4 billion to public transit improvements; $8 billion to high-speed rail investments and $18 billion to grants and loans for water infrastructure. $5 billion is allocated for home weatherization grant; $6.3 billion for energy efficient upgrades for public housing. All of these will stimulate construction jobs, yet labor statistics show that African Americans, while comprising 13% of the population, make up less than 6% of construction workers. Women - half our population -- hold 9.4% of construction jobs. This is an "early warning bell" that stimulus job creation may not be as equitable as it could be.

Progressive leaders have already called the stimulus package a "first phase" or "downpayment" on a potentially long-term infrastructure rebuilding plan for the nation.To take The Kirwan Institute's home state as an example, Ohio stands to gain roughly $8 billion from the current plan. The Columbus Dispatch reported that "[Ohio Governor] Strickland speculated yesterday that the package still could leave a hole of $400 million or $500 million in his proposed $54.7 billion, two-year budget."⁴ Ohio state officials had identified $2.7 billion in "shovel-ready" projects, but Ohio will receive only a third of that.

While some of the money will be managed by federal departments (such as the Department of Energy), much of it will be managed locally. How localities implement transportation and energy infrastructure improvements, balance school budgets, and buy and rehabilitate foreclosed and vacant properties is yet to be determined. For example, 60% of the formula funding provided for highway investments will be directed to states, while 40% will be sub- allocated to local governments. The transportation allocation includes a "competitive grants" section for projects that "have a significant impact on the nation, a region, or a metropolitan area." This could be a powerful incentive for regional, collaborative, and equitable proposals. However, we must be informed enough to ask for, and monitor, the "equitable." (continued)