|
|
|
|
Title VI
208 Courthouse
625 Georgia Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37402
423-209-6180
FAX 423-209-6181
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
>> |
|
|
|
|
Heart of Title VI
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national
origin be excluded from participation in, be denied in the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
42 U.S.C. § 2000d
|
|
The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a product of the growing demand, from
Black leaders, during the early 1960’s for the Federal Government to launch a nationwide
offensive against racial discrimination. In calling for its enactment, President
John F. Kennedy identified “simple justice” as the justification for Title VI:
|
|
Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races
contribute, not be spent in any fashion, which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes,
or results in racial discrimination. Direct discrimination by Federal, State, or
local governments is prohibited by the Constitution. But indirect discrimination,
through the use of Federal funds, is just as invidious; and it should not be necessary
to resort to the courts to prevent each individual violation.
|
Title VI was not the first attempt to ensure that Federal monies not be used to
finance discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. For example,
various prior Executive Orders prohibited racial discrimination in the armed forces,
in employment by federally funded construction contractors, and in federally assisted
housing. Various Federal court decisions also served to eliminate discrimination
in individual federally assisted programs.
Congress recognized the need for a statutory nondiscrimination provision such as
Title VI to apply across-the-board. Senator Hubert Humphrey the manager of House
Resolution 7152, which became the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stated their reasoning
was, to make sure that First, the overturning of Brown vs. Board of Education did
not invalidate several important financial assistance statutes. Second, Title VI
would eliminate any doubts that some Federal agencies may have had about their authority
to prohibit discrimination in their programs. Third, Title VI would “insure the
uniformity and permanence to the nondiscrimination policy” in all programs and activities
involving Federal financial assistance. Thus Title VI would eliminate the need for
Congress to debate nondiscrimination amendments in each new piece of legislation
authorizing Federal financial assistance. On July 2,1964, after much debate, President
Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law.
In 1970 the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights performed its first full evaluation
of the Federal Title VI enforcement effort. In its report, the Federal Civil Rights
Enforcement Effort, the Commission studied various federal agencies civil rights
implementation and enforcement efforts pursuant to Title VI. The report concluded
that, generally “Title VI had failed to match the law’s promise … The mechanisms
developed by Federal agencies with Title VI responsibilities had glaring deficiencies….
In addition, there were inconsistencies in the ways agencies viewed the scope of
their responsibilities under Title VI.” In particular, the Commission attributed
the overall deficiency in Title VI enforcement to insufficient staff and staff training,
the low organizational status of the agency officials in charge of enforcing Title
VI, the low priority placed on Title VI responsibilities, ineffective mechanisms
for monitoring and securing compliance, minimum reliance on compliance reports,
and an overall passive approach to implementation and enforcement. The Commission
also concluded that the Department of Justice had “consistently failed to devote
adequate manpower or resources to the task.”
In 1971 the Commission reexamined Title VI enforcement again. The Commission found
that although a few agencies showed some improvements, many had done nothing to
fulfill their Title VI responsibilities. This examination continued year after year
throughout the 1980’s with little or no improvement to report.
One significant event to note during the 1980’s was the passing of “the Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1987.” This legislation was passed to overturn the Supreme Courts
decision in Grove City College vs. Bell, 465 U.S.555 and to restore the effectiveness
and vitality of the four major civil rights statutes that prohibit discrimination
in federally assisted programs. The Grove City ruling severely narrowed the application
of coverage of Title IX of the Education amendments of 1972, Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975. The purpose of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 is to reaffirm
pre-Grove City College judicial and executive branch coverage of the anti-discrimination
provisions of these civil rights statutes.
In the 1990’s Title VI received greater public attention. In September 1993, for
the first time in its history, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
assumed the functions of the Orange County Housing Authority in Vidor Texas, because
the local housing authority had failed to comply with the anti-discrimination provisions
of Title VI. HUD acted in response to the housing authority’s failure to create
a safe and secure environment for all people, particularly its failure to remedy
the racial harassment and racially hostile environment in Vidor Village, a federally
assisted public housing development.
On May 31, 1993 the state of Tennessee became the first state to pass legislation
enforcing Title VI compliance in all of its departments, programs, agencies, and
sub-recipients receiving federal financial assistance. The legislation is listed
as Public Law Chapter 502. State Representative Henri Brooks of Memphis, TN. sponsored
this legislation. During legislative sessions in 1994 through 1996 she proposed
state legislation to establish an entity to monitor Title VI compliance in Tennessee.
In 1995 Governor Don Sundquist gave the Tennessee Commission on Human Rights the
authority to review complaints. In 1996 the Human Rights Commission hired Kimberly
Bandy to coordinate the Title VI program for the state of Tennessee. The state of
Tennessee has 37 agencies that must comply with the Title VI legislation. The city
of Knoxville in 1997 became the first city to implement a Title VI plan. On December
3, 1999 Hamilton County became the first county to implement a Title VI plan.
Title VI remains the broadest instrument available to eliminate racial and ethnic
discrimination. Title VI applies to approximately 27 Federal agencies administering
more than 1000 programs and distributing annually an estimated $900 Billion Dollars
in Federal financial assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How Hamilton County will comply with Title VI |
Print the complaint form on your printer to mail in |
Civil Rights statutes prohibiting discrimination |
|
|
|