DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965 | Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1100

Transcribe
Translate

Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965

Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1100

1100     IOWA LAW REVIEW     [Vol. 49

to a select group of particular individuals and not the public at large. Persons choosing to operate or patronize such an establishment should be permitted to do so in recognition of the interest in freedom of association. This is the only way that this value can be accorded due respect.
   But when an establishment caters to the public at large for a fee, the interest in freedom of association is at its lowest ebb. The enterprise involved has consciously chosen to exploit the opportunities available to it in the general public when it could do otherwise. It has also consciously chosen to do for for a fee and thereby benefit at the public's expense. Further, because it caters to the general public, the relationship involved is more likely to be brief, sporadic, and non-social. Consequently, there is no great equity in this situation for preponderating notions of freedom of association over notions of equal opportunity. Having invited the patronage of the general public for a fee,t he establishment cannot be heard with any great sympathy when it says that it excludes Negroes, Jews, or people of Polish descent. This is particularly true because the aggregate of such exclusions works a grave, unjust, and unwarranted injury on the racial, religious, ans ethnic groups discriminated against, as well as on society as a whole.
   Passing public accommodations for the moment, it must be noted that Iowa is not among the seventeen states and sixty-one cities in this country that have some kind of statute barring discrimination in housing.127  Consequently, this state presently affords minority groups no protection against arbitrary exclusion from housing facilities because of race, religion, or ethnic background. Instead, it recognizes the "right" of landlords, realtors, and others to deny such groups the kinds of housing available to other Iowans, even though both the excluded minority groups and Iowa suffer from the aggregate of such conduct.
   Because the coverage of the "Civil Rights Act" is deficient and because Iowa does not have a statute proscribing discrimination in housing, the following substantive provisions are proposed in lieu of the present Iowa public accommodations statute. They substantially broaden the coverage of the present act, and also deal with housing.
________________________
127 The states are: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin. Twelve of these states bar discrimination in privately owned and financed housing. See Scoreboard, Laws Affecting Discrimination in Housing as of Sept. 30, 1963, Trends In Housing, Sept.-Oct. 1963, p. 7, for a current picture of the various state and city laws barring discrimination in housing. For the statute recently adopted by the city government of the District of Columbia, see New York Times, Jan. 1, 1964, p. 1, col. 4.

Saving...

1100 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49 to a select group of particular individuals and not the public at large. Persons choosing to operate or patronize such an establishment should be permitted to do so in recognition of the interest in freedom of association. This is the only way that this value can be accorded due respect. But when an establishment caters to the public at large for a fee, the interest in freedom of association is at its lowest ebb. The enterprise involved has consciously chosen to exploit the opportunities available to it in the general public when it could do otherwise. It has also consciously chosen to do for for a fee and thereby benefit at the public's expense. Further, because it caters to the general public, the relationship involved is more likely to be brief, sporadic, and non-social. Consequently, there is no great equity in this situation for preponderating notions of freedom of association over notions of equal opportunity. Having invited the patronage of the general public for a fee,t he establishment cannot be heard with any great sympathy when it says that it excludes Negroes, Jews, or people of Polish descent. This is particularly true because the aggregate of such exclusions works a grave, unjust, and unwarranted injury on the racial, religious, ans ethnic groups discriminated against, as well as on society as a whole. Passing public accommodations for the moment, it must be noted that Iowa is not among the seventeen states and sixty-one cities in this country that have some kind of statute barring discrimination in housing.127 Consequently, this state presently affords minority groups no protection against arbitrary exclusion from housing facilities because of race, religion, or ethnic background. Instead, it recognizes the "right" of landlords, realtors, and others to deny such groups the kinds of housing available to other Iowans, even though both the excluded minority groups and Iowa suffer from the aggregate of such conduct. Because the coverage of the "Civil Rights Act" is deficient and because Iowa does not have a statute proscribing discrimination in housing, the following substantive provisions are proposed in lieu of the present Iowa public accommodations statute. They substantially broaden the coverage of the present act, and also deal with housing. ________________________ 127 The states are: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin. Twelve of these states bar discrimination in privately owned and financed housing. See Scoreboard, Laws Affecting Discrimination in Housing as of Sept. 30, 1963, Trends In Housing, Sept.-Oct. 1963, p. 7, for a current picture of the various state and city laws barring discrimination in housing. For the statute recently adopted by the city government of the District of Columbia, see New York Times, Jan. 1, 1964, p. 1, col. 4.