While both maps display the exact same data, the first map is meant to exaggerate diversity and the second is meant to exaggerate racial divisions. The stark difference in appearance was created by manipulating the range of the data (Percent Minority), which is achieved through altering the number of buckets in the fill color options under the “change map feature styles” selection in Google Fusion Tables. By creating more buckets, you break up the range further, allowing for a larger variety in district differences. The opposite is true when the number of buckets is decreased. I also used certain colors to help further amplify the difference in the two maps. The black-white contrast of the racial division map was used to boost the look of clear lines of segregation. On the other hand, the large color scale on the diversity map was meant to emphasize numerous levels of minority presence scattered throughout the region.
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
Agosto, Jasmin. “Fighting Segregation, Teaching Multiculturalism: The Beginning of the Education/Instruccion Narrative of the 1970s Hartford Civil Rights Movement”. Educational Studies Senior Research Project, Hartford, Connecticut: Trinity College, 2010.
Glue, cut up pieces of paper, and string. These were the tools used to ignite a flame under the fight against housing discrimination[1]. Ben Dixon, Boyd Hinds and Julia Ramos, three very unique individuals with extremely different backgrounds came together to map out the majority of power within the largest, most influential corporations within the Hartford community. It quickly became evident that those controlling the money flow, the housing laws, and the insurance rates were white males[2]. Thus began the battle of uncovering active discrimination within these practices, with a vision of reforming the system for a permanent fix for institutionalized racism.
Boyd Hines, a white male who grew up with a middle class family in the suburbs of Hartford introduced Dixon to Ramos when he offered them a teaching job at Westledge School. This school was a private institution that attempted to provide a better education for Puerto Rican and African American boys. Julia Ramos was Puerto Rican woman and graduate from the University of Hartford. Ben Dixon was an African American man who grew up in Hartford, and received the opportunity to attend Howard University. But the time Hines, Ramos and Dixon spent at Westledge was limited, for their observance of one school making a minute difference seemed lackluster against tackling a fundamental, institutional issue[3].
True, Education/Instruccion set out to fight a legal battle against institutional racism. However, with equal importance, Education/Instruccion was an organization that wanted to educate the people who were being subjugated without their knowledge. Education/Intrucicion wanted to bring to the attention of those facing discrimination, perhaps without their knowledge, that this system is flawed, and someone…something…this group of three brave individuals is willing to take a stand against the injustice. Therefore, they started out offering consulting services as well as creating articles which spell out corporation corruption in a way that is coherent[4]. The bilingual name of the group illustrates this goal: bridging a gap within the Hartford community.
Testing and Collecting Evidence
The original Fair Housing Act of 1968 weakly prohibited discrimination in the “sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or familial status.”[5] However, this practice was barely enforced and laced with loopholes. Education/Instruccion began to engage in “testing” practices. This testing is a way of measuring the validity of information and quality of customer service given to potential buyers, by sending in actors looking to purchase homes. For example, as testified in the case The Barrows and Wallace Co., et al.: Mr. and Mrs. Hall were African-American testers[6]. Without revealing any facts about their race, Mrs. Hall contacted the Mary Ellen Walsh and Dorothy Oasis office for real estate. Over the phone, Mrs, Hall inquired about homes in the Greater Hartford area, west of the Connecticut River. Their price range was between $25,000 – $30,000. Appointment was made to look at houses, but Mrs. Hall cancelled the appointment over the phone, asking to postpone, yet also inquiring about where their potential houses were located. Mrs. Walsh told Mrs. Hall a variety of addresses located in the Hartford and West Hartford areas. Mrs. Wash insinuated that Mrs. Hall should move out of the Blue Hills area, because the neighborhood was changing. However, when Mrs. Walsh finally met Mrs. Hall in person, only houses in the Blue Hills area were shown to her. All of the homes in other areas of Hartford including West Hartford were all of the sudden unavailable[7].
The Court Case
On April 19, 1974, a suit was filed against the Real Estate commission in New Haven Federal District Court. The plaintiffs were six citizens, fifteen community organizations, the Connecticut Coalition for Open Suburbs and Education/Instruccion. The complaint lodged was entitled the, “Title VIII Open Housing Complaint” and it stated that the state of Connecticut had been plagued by the Real Estate industry’s “racial steering” (encouraging buyers of certain races to move into certain areas) and “blockbusting” (encouraging white homeowners to leave neighborhoods with growing minorities and sell their homes for a low price) techniques and discriminatory hiring practices. With multiple counts of testing evidence proving racist tendencies by real-estate agents, many of these major corporations decided to “settle.” Indirectly admitting guilt, Education/Instruccion was responsible for bringing to light unfair practices that were plaguing what could be a diverse community.
[1] Agosto, Jasmin. “Fighting Segregation, Teaching Multiculturalism: The Beginning of the Education/Instruccion Narrative of the 1970s Hartford Civil Rights Movement”. Educational Studies Senior Research Project, Hartford, Connecticut: Trinity College, 2010.
[2] Agosto, Jasmin. “Fighting Segregation, Teaching Multiculturalism: The Beginning of the Education/Instruccion Narrative of the 1970s Hartford Civil Rights Movement”. Educational Studies Senior Research Project, Hartford, Connecticut: Trinity College, 2010.
[3] Agosto, Jasmin. “Fighting Segregation, Teaching Multiculturalism: The Beginning of the Education/Instruccion Narrative of the 1970s Hartford Civil Rights Movement”. Educational Studies Senior Research Project, Hartford, Connecticut: Trinity College, 2010.
[4] Agosto, Jasmin. “Fighting Segregation, Teaching Multiculturalism: The Beginning of the Education/Instruccion Narrative of the 1970s Hartford Civil Rights Movement”. Educational Studies Senior Research Project, Hartford, Connecticut: Trinity College, 2010.
[6] United States of America v. The Barrows and Wallace Co., Et Al.,. Attatchement VI 6-8. The United Sattes District Court for the District of Connecticut. 14 June 1974.
[7] United States of America v. The Barrows and Wallace Co., Et Al.,. Attatchement VI 6-8. The United Sattes District Court for the District of Connecticut. 14 June 1974.
Front page of the Hartford Courant highlighting the landmark case, Sheff v. O’Neill on July 10, 1996.
On Behalf of All Our Children: The 1996 Sheff v. O’Neill Supreme Court Ruling
The landmark court case charged with creating more quality and integrated schooling in the Hartford area has been a labor of love on behalf of many and a long drawn out battle between citizens and the state of Connecticut. The mother of lead plaintiff, Milo Sheff, reveals that the landmark case she spearheaded was never a “personal thing” for her. In a 2011 interview, Elizabeth Horton Sheff asserts, “It was always something that I engaged in on behalf of all our children.” The Sheff plaintiffs won their case 4-3 in the 1996 Supreme Court ruling. What that victory meant for the education of the children of Greater Hartford was unclear.
The Beginning of Sheff v. O’Neill
In 1989, Elizabeth Horton Sheff alongside several other parents from the city of Hartford and surrounding suburbs took action to hold the state of Connecticut accountable for the quality of their children’s education. The 18 school children, with their parents at the forefront, presented the state of Connecticut with what would become a landmark lawsuit. In the suit, the families claimed that the state had contributed to the racial, ethnic, and economic isolation of Hartford students that led to subpar quality schooling in comparison to their suburban counterparts.
The Sheff case was eventually tried in 1992. After nearly three months of trial, Superior Court Judge Harry Hammer ruled in favor of the state. He agreed with the defense’s stance that state could not be held liable for rectifying educational inequalities, because the state of Connecticut had not intended to create the segregation that existed between Greater Hartford school districts. He also asserted that the plaintiffs presented no proof that government action created the racial isolation that was so detrimental to the education of Hartford public school students.
L to R: 10 year old Milo Sheff, Elizabeth Sheff, and plaintiffs’ attorney, John Brittain at a 1989 press conference. Photo cred: http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-sheff-oneill-timeline-flash,0,105112.flash
Appeal and Victory: The 1996 Majority Opinion
After their 1995 loss, Sheff plaintiffs appealed their case to the State Supreme Court. It took the Justices ten months of deliberation to overturn Judge Hammer’s ruling and come back with a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The majority opinion, led by Justice Ellen Ash Peters, ruled that the state was in fact responsible for providing equal educational opportunities for all children. Section 42 of the 1996 ruling states:
“Despite the initiatives undertaken by the defendants to alleviate the severe racial and ethnic disparities among school districts, and despite the fact that the defendants did not intend to create or maintain these disparities, the disparities that continue to burden the education of the plaintiffs infringe upon their fundamental state constitutional right to a substantially equal educational opportunity.”
The dissenting opinion agreed that Hartford school children were at an educational disadvantage, but not solely because of racial isolation. The dissent named poverty, not merely racial isolation for the disadvantages the city’s students faced. The Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed. In this instance, the outcomes and not the intentions of the state’s actions had been tried. It was presumed that the state had not intended for the racial, economic, and ethnic isolation of Hartford school children, but they were charged with remedying it. The ruling also pointed to location of Greater Hartford urban-suburban school district boundary lines as a cause of racial isolation and deemed them unconstitutional. Despite the ruling’s progressive rhetoric, the court made no clear recommendations to create a racially, ethnically, and economically integrated city-suburban school system. The majority cried urgency for Hartford school children, yet a there was no urgency in their recommendation for policy implementation. No deadlines were set and no there were no mandatory plans for integration. The Sheff plaintiffs had won on paper, but what had they really accomplished on behalf of all our children?
Click here to learn more about the Sheff Movement.
Sources
Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.
Sheff, Elizabeth Horton. Oral history interview on Sheff v. O’Neill (with video) by Candace Simpson for the Cities, Suburbs, and Schools Project, July 28, 2011. Available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford Connecticut.
“Sheff vs. O’Neill: A Timeline.” Courant.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2013. <http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-sheff-oneill-timeline-flash,0,105112.flash>.
Sheff v. O’NEILL, 238 Conn. 1, 678 A.2d 1267 (1996).
From 1941 to 1945, the involvement of the United States in World War II caused major shifts in all parts of the country, particularly in the Northeast. During the war, industries in the United States became more geared towards meeting the needs of wartime which created more opportunities for people who could not or did not enter the military. Because many men were shipped off to war, there were more opportunities for African Americans to make social progress within Connecticut. Furthermore, many of the conditions in which African Americans faced with housing during this period became even worse than before even though the main focus was on improving this housing. The consequence of ignoring the housing issue, even after the war was over, in Hartford would soon take a toll on the population as a whole. Warren M. Banner, the director of Research and and Community Projects for the National Urban League, published several reports describing the population of African Americans in different cities including in journals such as The Journal of Educational Sociology (1). In 1944, the National Urban League asked Warren to write a report that demonstrated to the general public the housing conditions of African American communities in Hartford. Banner decided to include additional issues that were just as important; In Banner’s 1944 report, “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”, Banner demonstrated to his audience the increase of African Americans moving into the Hartford community, the increased opportunities for African Americans in the workforce, and described the housing conditions in the African American communities (2).
The Rise and Fall of Employment
With the U.S. entering the war in 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor, many men were shipped off to fight which left many job opportunities open well into 1945. Although many jobs were left for those who could not or did not participate, many of the jobs were very basic and limited, and they excluded African Americans. People from all walks of life made up Hartford’s population including workers, soldiers, and new families. Many of the people who migrated to Connecticut were in-migrators, which meant that they were people who were migrating from different parts of the U.S. to another area within it. Many of the immigrants that made up the population were residents who had previously came to Connecticut in the 1850’s and the start of 1900 (3). With the growth of the African American population, many African Americans began to scatter all throughout the state of Connecticut. The largest populations of African Americans tended to be in larger towns such as Bloomfield, Windsor, and Wethersfield with hopes of finding more opportunities in larger areas, where they eventually settled down and had families of their own (4). Although there became more stable communities and larger populations in the area, there were also a number of people who left the area for their own reasons such as soldiers. African American troops were stationed in certain areas of the Greater Hartford region and were constantly on the move within and out (5). Moreover, many people would leave dependent on the amount of employment opportunities in each town. However, Hartford’s North End had “the heaviest concentration” of African Americans because of the amount of labor that was needed for the tobacco industry (6).
Banner, Warren M. A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut. “Table XI: Negro Public Employees”
Prior to Banner’s report in 1944, African Americans had to compete for employment against immigrant workers in Hartford’s growing tobacco industry as described in Charles S. Johnson’s 1921 report. Many of these immigrants were mainly Italian and Irish who dominated the workforce in 1850 and had an even stronger influence in the 1900s dominating political and social organization (7). During the early 1940s, there were certain areas of employment that became closed off to African Americans which were claimed to have been open to the general public. Before the war, most white men dominated in the more respected areas such as sales, woodwork, and clerical work while African Americans generally made up the general population of laborers and service workers (8). However, African Americans would soon dominate the large tobacco industry that they had once competed ferociously for. Employers in the tobacco industry soon made a change from a preference of immigrant workers to a preference of African American workers causing more jobs to become open to the African American community. Tobacco growers in the area felt The opening of this opportunity would then cause many more African Americans to migrate to Hartford residing primarily within its city limits.
Although there were many opportunities for African Americans in menial jobs, many were excluded from becoming a part of Hartford’s offices, state, and federal departments. There were many people employed in private companies, but generally African Americans were not employed or excluded. African Americans generally were placed in more basic and routine jobs, and they were not given the same opportunities to seek employment to “obtain the necessities for healthful and comfortable living” (9). Although many African American workers journeyed to Connecticut during this time to take advantage of the growing industrial companies, there were little to none working in them. Even when African American workers were hired to work for a company, they were tasked with a job in which required little to no skill at all.
The War on Housing
With the demand for employment in Hartford increasing, the focus on housing for the residents living within Hartford slowly declined along with the plans for improvements. Improvements for residences were made in order to improve the living conditions for residents, even though the housing was already difficult for residents before 1940, but the “great war emergency period” caused for a halt and made the existing conditions even worse (10). Many of the residents of Hartford, including African Americans, were “tenant dwellers” which meant that they resided in places that were rented and not owned by them. Residents in Hartford, more specifically African Americans, were living in below than adequate residences and unable to find decent housing within the city of Hartford. Although many moved out of the city, African Americans did not move and dwelled within these same subpar building a part of the low-renting and war housing projects. African Americans were the largest population of people who dwelled in these projects as well as other immigrants in each given community. Towards the end of the “great emergency war period”, African American residents would then have to move into slums and run-down buildings because of the cost and familiarity with the areas that they had lived in for so long (11). Many would migrate to the North End of Hartford which already previously had the largest population of African Americans in the city of Hartford.
Banner’s Advice
Despite the war having drastic effects on the city of Hartford, Banner states that the African American population has been able to create a stronger and firm leadership role that was not present before. With the improvements in finding employment and the growing African community, people are able to bond and create a life for their families. However, this strength can and has been tarnished by the growing housing crisis for African Americans living in Hartford. He advises that if this continues, the community will grow weaker and the problems will continue to progress (12). Housing would then become more segregated and create overcrowding in the area. African Americans and their families would then continue to live in inadequate housing and unstable environments. In order for there to be a progression, Hartford would need to improve conditions for that of African American tenants living in the city (13).
Learn More:
Immigrant Residing in Hartford 1850-1940 Click Here.
Charles S. Johnson’s 1921 Report for the Urban League Click Here.
Works Cited:
1. Banner, Warren M. “Profiles: New York.” Journal of Educational Sociology 17.5 (1944): 272-79. JSTOR. Web. 8 Oct. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2262338>.
2. Banner, Warren M. A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut. Rep. New York: National Urban League, 1944. Print.
3. Clouette, Bruce Alan, ““Getting their share”: Irish and Italian immigrants in Hartford, Connecticut, 1850–1940″ (1992). Doctoral Dissertations. Paper AAI9300925.<http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI9300925>
Footnotes:
(1) Banner, Warren M. “Profiles: New York.”
(2) Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg. 1.
(3) Clouette, Bruce Alan, ““Getting their share”: Irish and Italian immigrants in Hartford, Connecticut, 1850–1940″. Abstract.
(4) Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg. 5.
(5)Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg 8.
(6) Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg. 5.
(7) Clouette, Bruce Alan, ““Getting their share”: Irish and Italian immigrants in Hartford, Connecticut, 1850–1940″. Abstract.
(8) Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg. 9.
(9) Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg. 13-17
(10) Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg. 27.
(11) Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg 29.
(12) Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg. 64-65.
(13)Banner, Warren M. “A Review of the Social and Economic Conditions of the Negro Population of Hartford, Connecticut”. pg. 65.
