Author: Emily Heneghan

Samuel Cullers Housing Discrimination Case, 1954-1957

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan
 
Samuel J. Cullers (right) and Corneal A. Davis, Hartford Redevelopment Project Model. Connecticut History Online
Samuel J. Cullers (right) and Corneal A. Davis, Hartford Redevelopment Project Model. Connecticut History Online

In 1954 and 1955 the principal planner for the Hartford Redevelopment Agency applied to rent a two-room garden apartment from McKinley Park Homes in Hartford but was deceitfully informed that there were no more vacancies. This young man, Samuel J. Cullers, was African American and believed that he was being barred from the housing development on racial grounds. Cullers filed—and won—a discrimination complaint against McKinley Park Homes but the Connecticut Supreme Court later overturned the ruling. The court declared that there was “insufficient evidence” to prove that McKinley Park Homes discriminated against Cullers by failing to supply him with an apartment.

The Hearing and the Civil Rights Commission Ruling in Favor of Cullers

Samuel Cullers was born in Chicago Illinois and graduated from Fisk University with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and economics in 1950. Right after graduation Cullers attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a John A. Whitney Fellow where he earned his masters degree in city planning in 1952. Shortly after, Cullers became the principal planner for the Hartford Redevelopment Agency as well as the City Plan Commission (“Samuel Cullers Appointed to Redevelopment Post.”). In 1954 and 1955, when Cullers filed a racial discrimination complaint after applying to rent an apartment from McKinley Park, it appeared that this highly accomplished city planner could not secure the housing he desired solely because he was African American.

On March 12, 1956 a public hearing called by the State Commission on Civil Rights in the case of Cullers vs. McKinley Park Homes was held a the State Capitol at 10 a.m. Attorney Cyril Coleman represented McKinley Park in the dispute, while Assistant Attorney General Raymond J. Cannon represented the Commission. The Connecticut Civil Rights Commission appointed a three-member fact finding board to study and file briefs on the case. The case stated that Samuel J. Cullers, an African-American Hartford resident as well as chief planner in the Hartford Redevelopment Agency, filed a complaint that he was denied entry into McKinley Park Homes twice because of his race. These occasions took place took place in 1954, and April of 1955. The commission entered the case because McKinley Park was under “publicly assisted housing,” receiving a tax abatement from the city. With this 10-year tax moratorium on its buildings, the development paid only $350,000 when the total assessment of the property was set at $513, 471.  Because McKinley Homes had another year to run its abatement during the time of Cullers complaint, this apartment complex was still subject to anti-discrimination policy under the Public Accommodations Act (“McKinley Park Told to Give Negro Home.”).

During the time of Cullers complaint there were no African Americans residing in the McKinley Park Homes. Manager of McKinley Park Homes, Diane Shumsky, denied that African Americans were unwelcome as tenants to the apartments stating, “Anybody can live in these apartments as long as they qualify.” On further questioning Shumsky explained that these qualifications had to do with the prospective tenant’s credit rating. At the hearing, Cannon presented evidence that McKinley Park submitted leases to two tenants shortly after Cullers was told there were no vacancies, which supported the claim of racial discrimination. Cullers visited the company on April 18, 1955 when a woman clerk told him there were no more applications available and later informed him that there were no apartments vacant, but on June 8 and June 20 of 1955 two tenants were admitted to McKinley Park Homes respectively. Although Cannon gave evidence that two tenants were admitted to McKinley Park after Cullers applied, Robert W. Gesecus, N.Y. president Presidential Management Corporation, which manages the McKinley development, said under cross-examination that there were no vacancies at the time of Cullers application. He also testified that personal interviews were necessary before applications were seriously considered. Although Cullers applied for an interview he did not receive a letter in return confirming his request, like other applicants had received. Gesecus claimed that he did not know why that was. When asked if the personal interview had something to do with determining the race of the applicant, Gesecus said it did not (“Hearing Ends in Case Charging Discrimination.”).

On June 19, 1956 the board of the Connecticut Commission on Civil Rights found that McKinley Park violated the Public Accommodations Act by refusing to rent an apartment to Cullers because of his race. The board ruled that Samuel Cullers of 101 Adelaide St., must be given an apartment at McKinley Park Homes, on Dauntless Lane, regardless of his race. After the ruling Cullers was enthusiastic about the decision and maintained his interest in renting an apartment at McKinley Park (“McKinley Park Told to Give Negro Home.”).

Appeal to Connecticut Superior Court: Ruling is Overturned

After the court ruled in favor of Cullers on June 19, McKinley Park homes appealed the board’s findings to the Connecticut Superior Court. Superior Judge John P. Cotter did agree that Cullers’ rent application was dealt with in a way that “creates a suspicion” but that the findings must be based on “substantial and competent evidence, not on a mere scintilla of evidence.” Judge Cotter points out that Culler sent his first application in 1954 by mail and made other contact through telephone. The fact that Cullers did not appear in person, Cotter argues, gives evidence that McKinley Park Homes was most likely unaware of his race. When Cullers did visited the company office on April 18, Judge Cotter said that from the evidence it seemed like Cullers was already “apprehensive and suspicious” that he was being barred on the basis of race when he entered the building. Furthermore, Cotter argued that based on the actions of the woman clerk, “we cannot infer an intent to discriminate against Cullers.” Based on this argument, Judge John P. Cotter overturned the Civil Rights Commission ordering McKinley Homes to rent an apartment to Samuel Cullers on the reasoning that there was insufficient evidence of bias (“Evidence of Bias Ruled Insufficient in Rent Case.”).

Cullers vs. McKinley Park Homes was not an exceptional case of racial housing discrimination, as there is much evidence of other instances of discriminatory practices that African Americans living in Hartford faced during the 1950s (“Where can a Negro Live?”).  This case makes it evident that during this time affluent African Americans were confronted with housing discrimination, not just lower class African Americans, and that even after anti-discrimination laws were put in place, African Americans continued to be challenged with housing barriers.

Works Cited

“Crime and Courts.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Jan 1 1957. ProQuest. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

“Evidence of Bias Ruled Insufficient in Rent Case.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Nov 6 1956. ProQuest. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

“Hearing Ends in Case Charging Discrimination.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Mar 27 1956. ProQuest. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

“McKinley Park Told to Give Negro Home.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Jun 19 1956. ProQuest. Web 8 Oct. 2013.

Rotberg, Robert. “Where can a Negro Live?” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): 16. Aug 25 1956. ProQuest. Web. 13 Sep. 2013

“Samuel Cullers Appointed to Redevelopment Post.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): Jan 16 1957. ProQuest. Web 8 Oct. 2013

Avoiding Plagiarism

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan

Step 0: Original Text: “Since the first Sheff trial ended in 1993, scholars across the nation have quietly produced evidence rather decisively documenting the harms of segregation and the benefits of policies and programs that connect racially and economically isolated families to the mainstream. Were John Brittain and Wes Horton only now starting to argue Sheff v. O’Neill in trial court, they might very well be able to make a surer, simpler case.

Before considering this research, it’s useful to acknowledge that “desegregation” represents not merely a “policy” or set of political choices but an aspiration, a moral vision of an inclusive, cohesive society. School desegregation, in particular, is not and never was sold but its advocates merely as the most effective “treatment” for increasing test scores. Evidence, however, does strongly suggest that reducing concentrated poverty—segregation’s ever-present attendant—might in fact contribute to higher achievement.”

Step 1: Plagiarize: It’s useful to acknowledge that “desegregation” represents not merely a “policy” or set of political choices but an aspiration, a moral vision of an inclusive, cohesive society.

Step 2: Plagiarize: Prior to contemplating this research, it is important to recognize that “desegregation” does not simply just signify a “policy” or political decisions but an aspiration, a moral apparition of an all-encompassing, unified society.

Step 3: Plagiarize: Instead of decisively recording the dangers of segregation, scholars throughout the nation have given evidence to the advantages of policies and plans that unite racially and economically segregate families to the mainstream (Eaton, 343).

Step 4: Properly Paraphrase: Susan Eaton speaks about how segregation is not something we should simply look at as a set of political decisions but as a future goal in which our society is completely unified across all racial and economic differences (Eaton, 343).

 Step 5: Properly Paraphrase: Although some people would argue that advocates for school desegregation assert that integration would be the most important element for increasing test scores, Eaton says that this is not the claim being made here. Instead Eaton argues that there is evidence that “strongly suggest that reducing concentrated poverty—segregation’s ever-present attendant—might in fact contribute to higher achievement” (Eaton, 343).

Work Cited:

Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.

 

 

Sheff 1996 Majority Opinion

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan

I analyzed the Sheff vs. O’Neill 1996 Connecticut Supreme Court case legal document for the majority opinion led by Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters. The ruling was split 4-3 with the court ruling that the state had an affirmative obligation to provide school children in Connecticut with equal educational opportunity and that this right also meant that access to such an education cannot be substantially impaired by racial and ethnic isolation. Lastly, the majority opinion concluded that school districting is unconstitutional because it bounds schools by town lines, which is one of the leading causes of the high concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities in Hartford.

This legal document makes it clear that even though the legislature may not have intended to create the conditions that have led to the racial and ethnic isolation in the Hartford public school system, the defendants still have an obligation to provide a solution for this constitutional injustice.

Furthermore, the majority opinion makes clear their belief that schools are important not simply just as an educational institution but also as a socializing institution. The argument is that if children of different races and socioeconomic groups never have an opportunity to know each other and go to school together then there is no expectation that these children will gain understanding and mutual respect for one another, which is key for a unified society.

The majority opinion gives evidence that students in the Hartford schools are racially isolated and that it is very likely that they will become more isolated in the future and that this segregation can have a devastating impact on a minority student’s education. Segregation of white and minority children in public schools is usually interpreted as signifying the inferiority of minorities, which affects the motivation of a child to learn. In a racially integrated school system, minority children would not be deprived of such educational and mental developments, but in fact such a school system would benefit both white and minority children.

In Susan Eaton’s book Children in Room E4, she summarizes the court ruling on the Sheff vs. O’neill 1996 case. In addition to this Eaton explains how in one sense Ellen Peter’s majority had gone very far by saying that the school districting scheme was unconstitutional, but on the other hand the court had not directed the state very clearly in what to do about the problem. It seems that Eaton is trying to say that although Peters did a great job in convincing the legislature of her case she did not leave a clear path to what should be done next (Eaton 179).

Discussion Questions:

1) Do you agree with Eaton that after the Sheff 1996 settlement was made the court did a poor job of directing the state what to do?

2) What is the most convincing argument made in the majority opinion? Why do you think so?

3) Although this seems to be a clear victory for racial and ethnic minorities in Hartford does it appear that this ruling would lead to immediate progress toward equal educational opportunities? Why or why not?

Fair Housing at Its Worst: the flagrant violation of Title VII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act in Greater Hartford, Connecticut, report 6.

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan

The article I examined was “Fair Housing at Its Worst: the flagrant violation of Title VII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act in Greater Hartford, Connecticut, report 6.” This report speaks about “blockbusting” and “panic selling” and about how mass solicitation of homes and apartments in communities creates an artificial reservoir of sales. Mass solicitation could be desirable for a neighborhood or it can have a negative effect in neighborhoods of minority or low-income concentration. In such situations, perfectly adequate housing goes unemphasized, which then causes leaders who often have significant decision-making power to move from such areas. Usually criticism of public schools increases as well as the poor morale in health recreation and summer programs. Government services are threatened by elimination and there is an increase in news reportings of unpleasantness and negative reaction is multiplied. The result of this is a loss of the sense of confidence, stability, and healthy growth in that area.

The next section explains the lack of racial integration in the state of Connecticut, calculating that in order to achieve a random distribution of blacks and whites 71% of the regions population would have to relocate.

Collective racist action is so clear in the federally established financing program of home-ownership for lower-income families known as section 235. The Federal Housing Administration discriminated against blacks by discouraging investment in racially mixed neighborhoods as well as inner-city neighborhoods. This report gives evidence that from the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the HUD 235 program was used to reinforce racial segregation in housing and used to further urban economic and physical decay. It is known that mortgage lenders, builders, brokers, and HUD officials understood the racist process but did nothing. The evidence behind this is that it is clear that HUD was aware what was occurring in the 235 program because it issued regulations requiring affirmative action program to integrate the projects which were being constructed and sold. “Although steering was clearly occurring in both the ‘new’ and ‘existing’ home purchase aspects of the program and two-thirds of units being purchased were ‘existing’ homes, HUD affirmative action requirements were only applied to ‘new’ construction. Both HUD and the lenders ‘looked the other way’.”

Sources:

Gotham, Kevin Fox. “Beyond Invasion and Succession: School Segregation, Real Estate Blockbusting, and the Political Economy of Neighborhood Racial Transition.” City and Community 1.1 (2002): 83-111. Print.

-I went to google scholar and typed in “blockbusting” and “panic selling”

Keating, W. Dennis. The Suburban Racial Dilemma: Housing and Neighborhoods. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1994. Print.

-I typed in “lack of racial integration in Connecticut” into jstor.

Rotberg, Robert. “Where can a Negro Live?” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): 1. Aug 20 1956. ProQuest. Web. 13 Sep. 2013 .

Discussion Questions:

1) Since this report makes it clear that HUD officials were aware that the 235 program was reinforcing racial segregation because it issued regulations requiring affirmative action but only for “new” home purchases which does not include the “existing” two-thirds of homes, does that mean that “steering” could be a public rather than just a private matter?

2) What is mass solicitation and what are ways in which it can either promote a neighborhood as being “desirable” or have negative effects in neighborhoods of minority or low-income concentrations?

Home Buying Simulation

Posted on Author Emily Heneghan

My annual gross income was $24,000, I had no debt and I had $5,000 in savings, which allowed me to spend a minimum of $51,397.94 and a maximum of $71,725.63 on an apartment or house. Since my price range for houses was so low, I had to eliminate the options of living in West Hartford, Wethersfield, and Newington because I could not afford even the cheapest houses in those areas. When looking for houses I was searching for areas with good district schools rather than good magnet schools for two reasons: 1) Since magnet schools work on a lottery based system there was no guarantee that my 3rd and 6th grade children would be accepted and 2) even if my children did get accepted there would be a very likely chance that their magnet school would be pretty far away and since I did not have a car I would not be able to assist in driving my children to and from school. My options were pretty limited but after doing research the three houses I would be willing to buy were 8 Wade Ave in Bloomfield, 470 W Wolcott Ave in Windsor, and 29 Edgerton St in Manchester. The house I would be most likely to buy would be 470 W Wolcott Ave in Windsor.

Screen shot 2013-09-06 at 11.30.41 AM

This house was $59,000 with a $242 monthly mortgage, which is within my price range. The house comes with 3 beds, which would be good because my two children would have their own bedrooms. My 3rd grader would attend the district school Poquonock Elementary, which is pretty racially balanced with 73% of students reaching the CT test goals and a +1 test gain. My 6th grade child would go to Sage Park Middle School, which has 69% of its students achieving test goals with a +5 test gain. The quality of education at these two schools seems to be above average plus both schools are over 2 miles away which would mean that neither child would have to walk to and from school because they would be provided with bus transportation. Although I was able to find a house that seems suitable for my family’s situation, it was not easy at all. I was really only able to find three acceptable options after doing much research and two of the options were not exactly ideal. I’ve learned about how difficult it is to find a home and that there are many factors that need to be accounted for in order to find a place that fits your family’s needs.