-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/6b50d21880cf2dfd7413c1756c336528.pdf
46ee2626545d2a9845a41100daab5219
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
14453
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
Out of Many, One - Draft [Binder] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
4
3
2
�Pari III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
C
March 17, 1999
ommunity policing is a relatively new model of law enforcement that
focuses on preventing crime by restoring order in communities, solving
community problems, and building partnerships between law enforcement officers and
the citizens they serve. Community policing is based on several interrelated principles:
First, studies show that reducing disorder in communities can help reduce fear of crime,
encourage citizens to interact with one another and their community, and thereby
decrease crime itself. Second, preventing crime requires more than making arrests; police
must also identify and help solve the underlying community problems that cause crime.
Third, both reducing disorder and solving community problems require strong relations
between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. In order to reduce
disorder and fear of crime, police must get to know the concerns, needs, and values of
law-abiding citizens. In order to solve problems that cause crime, police must look to
these same law-abiding citizens for information about those problems. Finally, citizens
and community organizations can play a vital role as partners in reducing disorder and
solving community problems, and these efforts can directly improve community
cohesiveness, which in tum can further reduce crime.
Before I ran for President, I traveled across the country and visited different cities
where local officials were leading the way in solving some of the nation's most difficult
domestic problems. One of the places I visited was Charleston, South Carolina, where
(III.4)-13
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
Police Chief Reuben Greenberg was at the forefront of the community policing
movement. Through community policing, Chief Greenberg was both driving down the
crime rate in public housing and strengthening the relationship between local police and
community residents.
When I became President, one of my top priorities was to help our cities hire more
police and expand the community policing philosophy. Vice President Gore and I were
proud to work with an unprecedented coalition of teachers, clergy, law enforcement and
elected officials, and other community leaders to pass our initiative to put 100,000 more
community police on the street. Today, we have nearly reached this goal and helped
expand community policing to thousands of police departments across the country. Our
efforts are making a difference. Crime and fear of crime have dropped to their lowest
levels in a quarter century. And I have asked Congress to extend the program by adding
another 50,000 officers.
Our efforts in community
policing provide a solid foundation for
. .
,
-
.
_,
achieving the goals of enhancing safety
Community Policing and the Clinton-Gore
Administration
[Text box on ways in which the Administration has
p r o m o t e d c o r n m u n i t y p o l l c m g
in our highest crime communities,
keeping young people out of the
(III.4)-14
j
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
criminal justice system, and increasing trust and confidence in law enforcement. To fully
achieve these goals, we should build on that foundation by applying the lessons learned
from community policing in other areas of the criminal justice system, such as local
prosecutors' offices, our courts, and local jails.
In the balance of this chapter I offer a workplan to guide us all in our efforts. Let
me first highlight the centerpiece for continued federal leadership.
B. CENTERPIECE OF THE FEDERAL WORKPLAN:
T H E COMMUNITY JUSTICE "HOT SPOTS" INITIATIVE
In order to reduce and prevent crime in our highest crime communities, I propose
a Community Justice "Hot Spots" Initiative—a comprehensive community policing
and crime prevention initiative targeted to neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage,
social disorder, and high crime rates. Like multiple fire hoses aimed at the center of a
blaze. Hot Spots will target proven community safety efforts into a single stream aimed at
crime hot spots. For communities willing to tackle conditions in their highest crime
neighborhoods:
(III.4)-15
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
The federal government will target funds from a number of key criminal
justice programs — both enforcement and prevention — including our 21st
Century Policing Initiative, which will extend our community policing
initiative by supporting additional police and other resources in the places
that need them most.
•
To be eligible for this pool of targeted funds, communities will be required
to bring all the actors to the table (federal, state, and local; public and
private; law enforcement and other services; and, most important,
concerned citizens and community leaders) to develop a coordinated,
comprehensive action plan aimed at preventing and combating crime in
specific high-crime neighborhoods.
•
The community action plans will promote accountability by setting
concrete goals for reducing crime, reducing fear of crime, increasing
confidence and trust in law enforcement, and more. Continued federal
support from the targeted pool would be tied to progress.
With this Hot Spots support, communities will implement comprehensive plans
aimed at high-crime areas and designed to (1) enhance law enforcement and establish
(III.4)-16
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
community policing, (2) rebuild community infrastructure, and (3) initiate proven
prevention programs aimed at young people, such as mentoring and after-school
programs. 1 cannot stress this third element enough. Just as overcoming disparities in
educational achievement requires taking action in early childhood and elementary
education, preventing crime by teens and young adults requires taking action early in
their lives to increase community supervision, provide adult support, strengthen families,
and instill a belief in opportunity. All of this should go hand-in-hand with other
community and economic development efforts aimed at our most distressed communities,
so that community plans should include business, education, faith and other sectors as
partners.
Many strategies show promise for reducing crime in our highest crime
communities. But hard evidence from program evaluations has been limited because too
few good studies have been done. Much of this is hard (not impossible) for social science
to measure, and no one has all the answers. The "Hot Spots" Initiative, therefore, is
designed to be flexible and to support innovative local approaches to reducing crime. All
community plans must, however, include evaluation mechanisms, and those evaluations
must show positive results to receive continued federal support.
By focusing the resources of many programs and many actors on the concentrated
(III.4)-17
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
problems facing our highest crime neighborhoods, we can vastly improve public safety,
and we can do so in a way that helps keep young people out of crime and builds
confidence and trust in our criminal justice system as well.
C. A WORKPLAN FOR THE NATION
The nation's agenda in criminal justice should focus on both decreasing crime and
improving the administration of justice. To Build One America, we must:
•
Ensure public safety in our highest crime communities;
•
Keep young people out of crime and the criminal justice system; and
•
Build fairness and trust in our criminal justice system across racial lines.
These are interrelated. We cannot, for example, enhance public safety in our highest
crime communities without implementing proven crime prevention programs aimed at
youth or without improving relations between citizens of color and law enforcement.
(III.4)-18
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
Still, it helps to separate these goals and focus more concretely on how to achieve each of
them.
(1) Ensuring Public Safety in Our Highest Crime Communities
Today, although crime rates are dropping across the nation and for all racial
groups, they remain unacceptably high in a small number of deeply poor, mostly minority
communities. These high-crime areas are concentrated in urban centers, but exist in other
areas as well, including parts of Indian country. The Community Justice "Hot Spots"
Initiative, described above, would expand the Federal commitment to those communities.
Whether as part of Hot Spots or otherwise, there are several important, interrelated
actions for all of us to take—all levels of government, and community partners as
well—to reclaim these communities so that parents can raise their children in safety,
businesses can invest with confidence, and all law-abiding citizens can enjoy the simple
pleasures of life free from crime and fear of crime. Americans of all races deserve no
less.
(III.4)-19
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
•
March 17, 1999
Enhance targeted law enforcement and address the problems of gangs, guns,
and drugs
Research confirms that increased law enforcement can help prevent crime, and
24
these returns can be greatest in our highest crime communities. According to a recent
study, "each additional police officer assigned to a big city prevents six times as many
25
serious crimes each year as an officer assigned nationally by population." But to be
most effective, increased law enforcement must be aimed at the right places and factors.
Crime is largely a concentrated phenomenon. Even within our highest crime
areas, the vast majority of crime occurs in relatively few places and at relatively few
times. Studies have shown that as little as three percent of all street addresses can
26
account for as much as 50 percent of the crime in a given community. These "hot spots
within hot spots" may include buildings, parks, or street comers that serve as havens for
24
Lawrence Sherman, Policing for Crime Prevention, in Preventing Crime: What Works,
What Doesn't, What's Promising, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Report
prepared by the University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8-9 to
8-10(1997).
25
Id. at 8-37; Thomas B. Marvell and Carlisle E. Moody, Specification Problems, Police
Levels and Crime Rates, in Criminology 34:609-46 (1996). [?]
26
E.g., Lawrence Sherman, Patrick R. Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger, Hot Spots of
Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place, in Criminology 27-55
(Volume 27, 1989). [?]
(III.4)-20
�Part III Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
criminal activity. The best law enforcement strategies identify high-crime places through
computer mapping, and then increase police patrols at those high-crime places at highcrime times. Importantly, research shows that enhancing such targeted law enforcement
does not simply displace crime, but actually reduces it.
In addition, whatever unique problems exist in a given high-crime community,
two problems likely to be pervasive are guns and drugs. And we know that the heart of
the violent crime problem is the combination of guns and drugs. Alfred Blumstein and
other noted criminologists postulate that the rise in violent crime in our highest-crime
communities during the 1980s was the result of a rise in gun violence among youth
caused by the emergence of crack cocaine. According to Professor Blumstein:
[C]rack arrived in the mid-1980s, initially in the larger cities, and spread from
there to the smaller cities. Because crack required many more sellers to meet the
increased demand ... there was major recruitment of young minorities to serve in
b
that role. They were carrying valuable property—drugs or the proceeds from the
sale of those drugs—and so they had to take steps to protect themselves from
robbery. Because they were dealing in an illegal market, they could not call the
police if someone tried to steal their valuables. Their self-protection involved
carrying handguns. Because young men are tightly networked and highly
(III.4)-21
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
imitative, their colleagues—even those not involved in selling drugs—armed
themselves also, at least in part as a matter of self-protection against those who
were armed. That led to an arms race in many inner-city neighborhoods.
It is widely recognized that violence has always been part of teenage males'
dispute resolution repertoire, but that has typically involved fights, the
consequences of which were usually no more serious than a bloody nose. The
lethality of the ubiquitous guns contributed in a major way to the doubling of the
27
homicide rate by (and of) those 18 and under.
One important lesson from this theory is that guns do kill people, especially
young people of color in our most disadvantaged communities. In places where
community supervision is limited, many young people are armed, and gangs exert great
influence, disputes are more likely to be "resolved" through gun violence. Nearly half of
all murders committed in the United States each year are committed by persons under 24
28
years old with guns. In the words of criminologists Philip Cook and Mark Moore,
27
Alfred Blumstein, The Context of Recent Changes in Crime Rates, in What Can the
Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities, U.S. Department of
Justice, Executive Office for Weed and Seed report, 15 (January 1998).
28
(III.4)-22
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
29
"There are very few drive-by knifings, or people killed accidentally by stray fists." We
must take action to stop gun violence and to keep guns out of the hands of those who
should not have them, including convicted felons and juveniles. Promising approaches
include increased seizures of illegally carried guns at crime hot spots, "tracing" of guns
seized in crime to crack down on illegal gun sales, and Brady Act background checks to
prevent gun purchases by convicted felons and others prohibited from buying guns.
In addition, we must crack down on gang activity. Today, there are an estimated
23,000 gangs with 665,000 members in 2,000 jurisdictions across the country, and there
30
is evidence that these numbers are growing. Research shows that gang members
account for a high percentage of crime in our highest crime communities and that gang
31
membership itself encourages criminal activity. We must prevent and reduce gang
membership and crime. In large part, this means increasing support for prevention
programs aimed at our young people. Simply put, we must draw the line against gang and
gun violence in our highest crime communities. By doing so, we can reduce crime and
save lives. For example, in Boston, law enforcement and community leaders—especially
29
Philip J. Cook and Mark H. Moore, Gun Control, in Crime, James Q. Wilson and Joan
Petersilia, eds., 273 (1995).
30
J.P. Moore, The 1995 Youth Gang Survey, Report to the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs (1996). [?]
31
(III.4)-23
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
clergy leaders—came together in 1996 and made clear to gang members that any gun
violence by any gang member would
be met with a massive, comprehensive
crackdown against all members of the
gang. The result was an immediate
decline in the number of juvenile
homicides in Boston to zero for two
_ .,,
,
„
consecutive years. Still, researchers tell
us that we know far too little about the
The Boston Gun Project
The Boston Gun Project presents an innovative
approach to deterring violent crime: combining the
efforts of the Boston Police Department, the
departments of probation and parole, the U.S.
Attorney's and county prosecutor's offices, the
Attorney General's Office, school police, youth
corrections, social services, and other partners, the
Ceasefire Working Group meets with gangs, makes it
clear that violence will not be tolerated, and backs up
that message with swift and strong reactions if
v l o l e n c e d o e s o c c u r
^
s t r a t e g y h a s
d e m o n s t r a t e d
that communicating up-front the consequences of gang
violence and backing up the message brings about
impressive results.
strategies most likely to work in
different communities. Gangs sow
chaos, and we must redouble our efforts to combat them not only with effective police
work, but also by strengthening families, improving our schools, and strengthening the
community institutions that create hope.
0
Finally, while the use of some drugs is decreasing in many places, the percentage
of persons who commit crimes under the influence of drugs is increasing, and drug
32
markets continue to threaten order in our highest crime communities. That's why we
cannot ease up our attacks on drug use and illicit drug markets. However, we must also
acknowledge that the war on drugs has taken a terrible, disproportionate toll on persons
32
(III.4)-24
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
on communities of color—compounding the destruction from the drug scourge itself. We
cannot allow the war on drugs to be a war on minority persons or communities, or to be
perceived that way in the very communities upon whose cooperation our efforts depend.
So, with more effective enforcement, we need a reinvigorated focus on prevention,
treatment and promoting greater fairness in administration of our drug laws.
We have made important progress in the war on drugs, but we cannot
"incarcerate" ourselves to victory in these most needy communities.
•
Engage the community and establish community policing
While increasing law enforcement can help reduce crime in our highest crime
communities, it must be the right kind of law enforcement done in the right way. Most
importantly, it is essential that the community itself be fully engaged in both the
development and implementation of any new public safety effort. Without that
involvement, targeted law enforcement efforts may be perceived not as comprehensive
community building but as a full-scale assault on selected minority neighborhoods.
Instead of increasing public safety, we can end up increasing mistrust of law enforcement,
thereby actually reducing its effectiveness.
(III.4)-25
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
Research shows that by improving the legitimacy of police in the eyes of the
community, we can not only reduce tensions, but also help prevent crime." Building that
police legitimacy requires training police and citizens to interact effectively, with mutual
respect, and building lines of communication through community meetings and other
mechanisms. (I will say more on these issues below with regard to building confidence
and trust in the criminal justice system.) In all of this, however, we must recognize that
racial and ethnic differences, festering as mistrust and suspicion, stand in the way of
achieving what both the community
A.U
v
i *u
security to which every American is
entitled
The community must also be
,.
m
.
and the police seek: the community
-
_ ^^^^^_^^^^_^^^^__^^^^^__ _
.
C h i c a g o
,
m
TEXT BOX
s A l t e r n a t i v e
p
o l i c i n g S t r a t e g y
( C A
p
S ) :
Chicago's Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) seeks
to identify and resolve problems of crime at the
neighborhood level by putting more police on the
street, training police and citizens in problem solving
and partnership building, and holding hundreds of
community meetings each month around the city at
which thousands of Chicagoans interact with their
community policing officers. Evaluations of CAPS
show that the effort has been successful in reducing
crime, reducing fear of crime, and improving relations
between citizens and law enforcement.
fully engaged because each
community's crime problem is to
some extent unique, and the law-abiding citizens of each community are the best resource
for understanding the roots of the crime and fear of crime they face. Partnerships are,
therefore, the heart of community policing. Since 1993, the number of communities
implementing community policing has increased from hundreds to more than 9,000. In
33
See Sherman, supra note _ , at 8-26; Tom Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (1990). [?]
(III.4)-26
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
1998, we took action at the federal level to target community policing resources to our
highest need cities, and I have proposed similar targeting of future federal community
policing resources as well. Evidence shows —as with Chicago's Alternative Policing
34
Strategy (CAPS) (see text box) —that the expansion of community policing has
contributed greatly to the decrease in crime across our nation and to better policecommunity relations.
As difficult as these problems are, there is reason to hope. Law enforcement need
not be a losing battle if we use what we know, invest what we can, and stay focused on
the goal of community security.
•
Build stronger communities
While law enforcement is important, crime prevention in most communities is a
consequence not only of government or law enforcement, but is primarily based on the
strength of the community itself, and the families within it. As one authority has put it:
Each person's bonds to family, community, school and work create what
criminologists call 'informal social control,' the pressures to conform to the law
34
(III.4)-27
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
that have little to do with the threat of punishment. Informal controls threaten
something that may be far more fearsome than simply life in prison: shame and
35
disgrace in the eyes of other people you depend upon.
Emerging research shows that crime rates in communities are related to what researchers
call "collective efficacy," which simply means the degree of social cohesion in a
community—the extent to which neighbors know, trust, and look out for one another; the
36
more there is, the lower the crime rates. So, formal law enforcement efforts must be
fully aligned with and support a range of community- and school-based efforts that
leverage informal social controls—from parent-teacher associations to neighborhood
watch programs.
However, communities with the highest crime rates not surprisingly have the
worst social conditions for preventing crime—pervasive unemployment, family
disruption, residential instability, and symptoms of disorder and seemingly petty
35
Lawrence W. Sherman, Thinking About Crime Prevention in Preventing Crime: What
Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising 2-7, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs Report prepared by the University of Maryland Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice (1997).
36
Robert J. Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush, Felton Earls, Neighborhoods and Violent
Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, in Science, Vol. 277, 918-24 (August 15,
1997).
(III.4)-28
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
lawlessness. According to Wesley Skogan:
Disorder is evident in the widespread appearance of junk and trash in vacant lots;
it is evident, too, in decaying homes, boarded-up buildings, the vandalism of
public and private property, graffiti, and stripped and abandoned cars in streets
and alleys. It is signaled by bands of teenagers congregating on street comers, by
the presence of prostitutes and panhandlers, by public drinking, the verbal
harassment of women, and open gambling and drug use. What these conditions
have in common is that they signal a breakdown of local social order.
Communities beset by disorder can no longer expect people to act in a civil
fashion in public places. . .
Researchers have found that perceptions of disorder have many ill effects on
urban neighborhoods. Disorder not only sparks concern and fear of crime among
neighborhood residents; it may actually increase the level of serious crime.
Disorder erodes what control neighborhood residents can maintain over local
events and conditions. It drives out those for whom stable community life is
important, and discourages people with similar values from moving in. It
threatens house prices and discourages investment. In short, disorder is an
(III.4)-29
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
37
instrument of destabilization and neighborhood decline.
In short, concentrated disadvantage and community disorder greatly reduce
collective efficacy and, thereby, promote crime in our highest crime communities. We
can and must take action to rebuild community infrastructure and strengthen the forces of
cohesion. One simple key is to get organizations involved. Existing community
organizations can and must reach into high-crime neighborhoods, encourage civic
38
participation, and build a foundation of community support.
Furthermore, the
community can be an essential partner in helping to restore order in high-crime
communities by cleaning up areas and promoting positive activities for youth. Indeed,
these roles might be more appropriate and successful ones for citizens and organizations
than a more traditional law enforcement role. Finally, we must promote quality education
and strong economic development to overcome the concentrated disadvantage that
plagues many high-crime communities. The elements of the workplan I have proposed in
these other areas are also vital to building secure communities.
37
Wesley G. Skogan, Disorder and Decline; Crime and the Spiral Decay in American
Neighborhoods. 2-3 (1990).
38
Wesley Skogan, The Community's Role in Community Policing, in Communities:
Mobilizing Against Crime, Making Partnerships Work, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice Journal, 34 (August 1996).
(III.4)-30
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
(2) Keeping Young People Out of Crime and the Criminal Justice System
After increasing dramatically for nearly a decade, juvenile crime has been
decreasing rapidly for the last few years at rates even greater than adult crime. However,
too many children are still falling prey to crime, as either offenders or victims. And kids
who commit crime are significantly more likely to become adults who commit crime.
39
There are nearly 3 million juvenile arrests across the nation each year, and children of
color are over represented in those arrests and at every stage in the juvenile justice
40
process. For example, minority youth constitute approximately 32 percent of the
juvenile population, but they represent 68 percent of the juvenile population in
4
detention. ' The further you go in the process, the worse the disparities look: black youth
constitute approximately 15 percent of the juvenile population, but blacks alone account
for 26 percent of juvenile arrests, 32 percent of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41
percent of juveniles detained in delinquency cases, 46 percent of juveniles in correctional
institutions, and 52 percent of juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial
39
See Peter W. Greenwood, "Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice," in Crime, James Q.
Wilson and Joan Petersilia, eds., 98-99 (1995).
40
Id. at 17.
41
Id. at 32.
(III.4)-31
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
42
proceedings.
In part, these figures raise serious concerns about the fairness of the juvenile
justice system, which I discuss below in the context of building fairness and trust in the
criminal justice system. But they also reflect disparities in the commission of crimes and
the need for greater efforts to keep our young people, especially young males of color, out
of crime and the criminal justice system. Once again, research suggests that racial
disparities in the commission of crimes by youth are closely tied to factors such as
concentrated poverty, family disruption, and residential instability that plague many
43
communities in which children of color are raised. Controlling for those factors,
44
juvenile offending rates do not differ significantly by race. Therefore, supporting
efforts in our highest crime communities, described above, to increase law enforcement,
enhance community policing, rebuild collective efficacy, and promote economic
development will help reduce and prevent youth crime. However, in addition to and as
part of those efforts, we must also renew our commitment to prevention and treatment
programs aimed directly at youth and young adults to ensure that our children have every
42
[OJJDP summary...]
43
Darnell F. Hawkins, John H. Laub, and Janet L. Lauritsen, "Race, Ethnicity, and
Serious Juvenile Offending," in Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and
Successful Interventions, 39-43, Rolf Loeber and David P. Farington, eds. (1998).
44
Id. at 42.
(III.4)-32
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
chance to succeed in life rather than getting caught up in a life of crime.
•
Prevent crime by supporting young people
Several strategies show evidence of success at keeping young people out of crime
and the criminal justice system and would likely have a disproportionately positive effect
on young people of color. Implementing those strategies successfully will require the
support and participation of families, schools, and communities. At the federal level, in
1998,1 was proud that we launched a Values-Based Violence Prevention Initiative to
support community-based efforts led by civic and religious organizations and designed to
target the problems facing young people, including youth violence, truancy, and gangs. I
believe these efforts show great promise, and we must do more at all levels of
government ~ especially at the community level.
First, as reported in the
education section of this chapter,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Y o u t h
ri
C me Prevention Programs
emerging evidence shows that early
[Descriptions of Houston and Boston Efforts
childhood and family support
focused on community-based civic efforts,
forthcoming]
programs can help reduce criminal
activity years and even decades later. The Perry Preschool project in Michigan, for
(III.4)-33
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
example, provided early childhood education and in-home family support for lowincome, black children ages three to five and their families. Children who participated in
d
the project were found to be less than one fourth as likely to become involved in crime
45
by age 24 as children who did not participate in the program. Similar programs have
also been found to reduce child abuse, which is a great evil in itself and a risk factor for
46
future child delinquency and adult criminality. We must increase support for early
childhood development, family support, and quality pre-school programs to reduce
juvenile delinquency and increase educational achievement.
Second, after-school programs can help reduce delinquent activity. Data show
that juvenile crime peaks sharply at 3 p.m., just as school lets out, and remains high until
47
approximately 8 p.m. It is during these hours of 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. that our kids are often
on their own and most likely to fall prey to gangs, drugs, and/or crime. By keeping
schools open to serve children and their families during these hours, we can provide our
children with safe havens from crime, promote constructive activities, and develop
45
J. Berrueta-Clement et al.. Changed Lives: The Effects ofthe Perry Preschool Program
on Youths through Age 19 (1984); Lawrence Sherman, Family-Based Crime Prevention, in
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs Report prepared by the University of Maryland Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice 4-10 to 4-15 (1997); James F. Short, Jr., Poverty, Ethnicity,
and Violent Crime, 1998-99 (1997); Greenwood, supra note _ , at 115.
46
See Sherman, supra note
47
Juvenile Offenders and Victims, supra note
, at 4-1 to 4-15.
(III.4)-34
, 26.
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
educational and other skills.
Third, many young people get into trouble because they lack adult and/or
community supervision. Mentoring programs can prevent juvenile crime by providing
that supervision and vital support. For example, a recent study of the Big Brothers and
Big Sisters of America program, which has existed for more than 90 years, found that
children participating in the program, 60 percent of whom were children of color, were
significantly less likely to use drugs or alcohol, get into fights, or skip school than kids
48
who did not participate in the program. If we are going to prevent our young people
from getting involved in gangs and crime, more caring adults must get involved in the
lives of our young people as mentors. Community-based organizations and institutions
are often the best sources for this kind of civic investment.
•
Reinforce right from wrong by promoting appropriate punishments when kids
first get in trouble
Rates of criminal recidivism—repeated law-breaking—among juveniles and adults
are astounding. Data show that the majority of adult prisoners released from state prison
48
Jean Baldwin Grossman and Eileen M. Garry, Mentoring — A Proven Delinquency
Prevention Strategy, U.S. Department of Justice Juvenile Justice Bulletin (April 1997); Sherman,
supra note , at 3-20 to 3-26.
(III.4)-35
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
are rearrested within three years, and these recidivism rates are highest for persons of
49
color. For some violent juvenile and young adult offenders, arrest and incarceration are
necessary, justified, and effective. In many instances and many ways, however, we can
do more to intervene in the lives of young people who commit crimes or delinquent acts
and help them and their families tum their lives around. Once again, several strategies
have shown signs of success.
First among these strategies are youth, gun, and drug courts, as well as drug
treatment more generally. These courts provide alternative interventions for non-violent
youth offenders and offer treatment and other services as long as those offenders stay out
of further trouble. Drug courts have become particularly important, both for children and
adults. Data show that the majority of all crime is committed under the influence of
50
drugs, including alcohol, or to get money to buy drugs. Drug courts and related
treatment strategies can help reduce recidivism by offering first-time, non-violent
offenders drug treatment, but requiring consistent drug testing and exacting immediate
sanctions for failing a drug test. There is a related challenge posed by the fact that too
many of those arrested for drug offenses never get the treatment that makes it more likely
that they will overcome their addictions. Most people on probation, parole, or in prison
49
[BJS data summary, 22.]
50
(III.4)-36
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
have some form of drug history, but we have not done enough to reduce their drug use
and the criminal behavior it often provokes. That's a self-defeating approach to fighting
crime, and we must do better.
Second, programs that promote what is called "restorative justice" can help reduce
repeat offending. Restorative justice holds youth offenders responsible for their
delinquent acts to both their victims and communities. Delinquent youth are required to
make restitution and perform community service, but they are also given adult mentoring
and employment training. Studies indicate that such programs can reduce recidivism and
strengthen community values." In addition, both offenders and victims who participate
in restorative justice report greater respect for the criminal justice system, which also
reduces criminal offending.
I
52
t's not enough to just hope that families, and perhaps churches and schools,
will keep youngsters on the right path, or "straighten them out" if things go
wrong. Wishing that things would be like they were in some idealized past seems a sorry
romantic response in communities that are struggling against all but overwhelming
problems. It takes hard work but committed people in their personal lives, and by people
51
52
(III.4)-37
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
in positions of community or public leadership, to help strengthen families and
institutions to help youngsters make the right choices for their future.
Our country has a higher proportion of our people in prisons and jails than any
other democracy. While we have had important success in reducing violent crime in
recent years, it remains intolerably high, especially in our poorest communities. Taken
together, these facts are overwhelming proof that we need far more attention to
challenges of prevention and diversion, to stop criminal behavior before the seeds of
wrongdoing take root in adolescent minds. It has been said that the best social policy is a
good job. There's much truth to that, because a good job anchors a strong family and
strong families anchor a vibrant community. Yes, we must redouble our efforts to create
jobs so that no community is left behind. But meanwhile, we cannot write off children
and leave them vulnerable to crime or the seduction of criminal behavior. We cannot
build the One America we want if one in six black children bom today, and one in eleven
Hispanic children, can be expected during their lives to spend time in a prison, while
white children face only a one-in-40 lifetime chance of incarceration.
(III.4)-38
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
(3) Building Fairness and Trust in Our Criminal Justice System Across Racial Lines
There is no more fundamental tenet of our governmental system than the
entitlement of every person, inscribed in our Constitution, to equal protection under the
law. That seemingly simple notion means many things in many contexts. But at its
heart, it means that the state shall not without compelling reason treat people differently
because of such factors as race, color, or national origin. The criminal justice system is
the most powerful domestic arm of the state. It has the power to restrict individual
freedom and, in extreme cases, even to take human life. With that power comes the great
responsibility and obligation to implement our laws fairly and justly.
Today, persons of color continue to have less confidence and trust in our criminal
justice system than whites. In a recent poll, for example, a majority of blacks said they
53
believe that the criminal justice system is biased against them. These perceptions are
based on a number of experiences, incidents, and policies that lead some law-abiding
persons of color to believe that they are likely to be targeted or threatened by law
enforcement for no reason other than the color of their skin.
53
Gallup Poll Monthly (1995) {cited in Randall Kennedy, Overview of Racial Trends in
the Administration of Criminal Justice, Draft paper submitted to NAS/NRC conference (1998)).
(III.4)-39
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
For white Americans, it is difficult but important to fully understand what this
means. Recently, the brother of a young, black member of my staff got his driver's
license. But, as my staff member explained to me, before his brother was allowed to
drive, his parents would have to have "the talk" with him. I wasn't sure what that meant.
"The talk" in this case was that when (not if, but when) the young man is stopped by the
police for no reason other than the color of his skin, he is to hide his frustration and anger
so that an upsetting situation does not escalate into a dangerous one. Many African
Americans have dubbed this phantom crime "Driving While Black." Two United States
attorneys who are African American talked at a recent Department of Justice conference
54
about having similar conversations with their own children. That is a talk that most
white parents do not have to have with their children. And it is a talk that no American
family should have to have.
The lack of trust and confidence in our criminal justice system among persons of
color is not only morally disconcerting, it also limits the effectiveness of law
enforcement, and may even promote crime. Recent studies show that persons are more
likely to obey the law when they believe the law and its officers are legitimate, and when
they are treated with respect. One study in Milwaukee, for example, found that persons
54
Problem Solving Group on Law Enforcement Stops and Searches, Report on the
proceedings (December 9-10, 1998).
(III.4)-40
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
arrested for domestic violence who believed they were treated fairly by law enforcement
officials in their interactions were significantly less likely to commit another act of
55
domestic violence compared to those who believed they were treated unfairly. A
similar study found that persons who perceived that police treated them fairly in their
interactions (such as when they were stopped by the police for traffic offenses) were less
56
likely to commit minor crimes (such as parking violations or petty theft). While the
studies may not put the social science question to rest, these troubling results are in a way
unsurprising. The fact is that we are all more likely to obey rules, respect authority, and
feel like members of a community when we believe that the rules are legitimate, the
authority treats us fairly, and the community respects our concerns.
We must take action to build the same levels of confidence and trust in our
criminal justice system among persons of color that other Americans have. In no small
part, this means improving relations between law enforcement and minority communities.
Community policing can play an important role here by establishing stronger lines of
communication—through community meetings, door-to-door visits, and more—and by
building partnerships between citizens and law enforcement. In addition, we must do a
55
Raymond Paternoster et al., Do Fair Procedures Matter? The Effect of Procedural
Justice on Spouse Assault, in
, 163-204 (199_).
56
Tyler, supra note
, at
. [?]
(III.4)-41
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
better job of training law enforcement officials in how to interact effectively with citizens
of all races. Finally, we must address several important and difficult issues underlying
the present racial gap in trust and confidence in our criminal justice system, including
such issues as racial profiling, police brutality, disparities in incarceration rates and
sentencing, and the lack of diversity in law enforcement. It is to those issues that I now
tum.
•
Restrict racial profiling
"Racial profiling" refers to the use of race, color, or ethnicity by law enforcement
as a factor in identifying criminal suspects. Several studies as well as individual cases
indicate, for example, that law enforcement officials are often more likely to stop
motorists who look black or Hispanic for traffic violations, to search black motorists for
drugs following a stop, and to question Hispanic persons about their immigration status.
Let me be clear: this is not about the use of race as the single reason for attention by
police or other officials, because there is always some kind of added triggering
circumstance—whether it is erratic driving, being in a place where authorities have good
reason to suspect criminal activity, etc. The problem is that a reasonable person might
look at that triggering circumstance and consider it too trivial, such as a minority teenager
driving in a "white" suburb. On the other hand, the controversy isn't about the use of race
(III.4)-42
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
or ethnicity as one of several identifying characteristics of a specific criminal suspect;
most of us would agree that if a robbery victim provides a good description, including
race, police should not be "color blind" in their search. Instead, the question here is,
"Should police be able to use race as a proxy for an increased risk that people of a given
57
racial background have engaged in or are about to engage in criminal misconduct?" For
example, a police officer sees two young men on a street comer at night engage in a very
quick transaction in which cash is exchanged for some small object that the officer thinks
may be drugs. Should the officer be any more or less inclined—or justified—in stopping
and questioning the young men if they are black or white or Hispanic or Asian Pacific
American or American Indian? What should Federal, state and local law enforcement
policy be?
Profiling is a difficult subject in part because many people focus on supposed
efficiencies and may not see immediately the great unfairness, the insult to our ideals. In
a sense, however, this is the perfect example of why perceptions about the criminal
justice system can differ so dramatically across racial and ethnic groups. If it has never
happened to you, or to someone close, you may not believe it is real, or may simply not
consider it important. But in fact, it is important to all of us because it goes to the very
57
Randall Kennedy, Race, Police, and "Reasonable Suspicion," Speech at the Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice (1998).
(III.4)-43
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
legitimacy of our system. Without fairness and trust, law enforcement will be seen as just
the raw, unaccountable power of the state. And that is a poisonous idea.
The Advisory Board on Race summarized this issue well in its final report to me:
Some in law enforcement may see racial profiling as a necessary,
legitimate practice given limited law enforcement resources and evidence
of racial disparities in criminal behavior... . But racial profiling also
imposes costs on innocent persons, perpetuates and reinforces stereotypes,
creates situations that can lead to physical confrontations, and contributes
58
to tensions between persons of color and the criminal justice system.
Not only is racial profiling fueled by negative stereotypes and inconsistent with our
fundamental belief in equal protection under the law, it is also simply bad policy that
hinders effective law enforcement. As Attorney General Janet Reno said at a recent
Department of Justice sponsored conference on police stops and searches:
First, it is wrong to assume that members of one race or ethnicity
are more prone to criminal behavior than any other. Reliance on such
58
Advisory Board on Race, supra note
, at 82.
(in.4)-44
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
racial stereotypes is as wrong in law enforcement as it is in other
endeavors. This includes situations where law enforcement officers
improperly use race to target individuals for a traffic stop, a pedestrian
stop or a request for consent to search, in the absence of information about
a specific suspect or other special characteristics.
[In addition,]...there are many points throughout the criminal justice
system where discretion plays a role—from the investigation stage, to arrest, to
the charging stage, to sentencing. Race-neutral policies at all of these stages are
essential to sound and credible law enforcement and the fair administration of
justice.
It is incumbent on law enforcement to critically review our efforts to
ensure that stereotypes and prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, do not
creep into the work that we do. All citizens must respect the law, but the law
59
must also respect all of our citizens.
59
Attorney General Janet Reno, Remarks at "Race, Crime, and the Administration of
Justice," Advisory Board Meeting, The President's Initiative on Race, Washington, DC (May 19,
1998).
(III.4)-45
�March 17, 1999
Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
1 agree with the Attorney
General. I don't consider
enforcement and fairness as
inconsistent goals. They are
complementary. Without the trust
of the community in which the
police operate, our law
enforcement efforts simply cannot
be effective. And the subject of
Executive Order on Racial Profiling
The Federal executive order will include:
• A general prohibition against the use of
race or ethnicity by federal law
enforcement officers;
• Authority for cabinet officers to grant
limited exceptions, based on specific
justification offered by an enforcement
agency, and disclosed to the general
public;
• Any exception would require a showing
that there are no reasonable alternative
enforcement strategies, and would be
accompanied by thorough data collection,
training, and monitoring;
• Periodic evaluation of the implementation
of this policy.
racial profiling, as I know you are
all aware, is one that has
galvanized many communities. The perception that law enforcement stops are biased has
a corrosive effect on our ability to protect and to serve the very communities where
effective law enforcement is often most needed.
I believe that to achieve our vision of One America with community security and
community faith in law enforcement, all levels of government must take this issue head
on. First, we must promote greater training for law enforcement officers on how to avoid
basing their actions on improper racial stereotypes and how to interact fairly and
(III.4)-46
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
constructively with citizens of all races in ways that de-escalate situations and build trust.
The Department of Justice is working on this at the national level, and many local
jurisdictions have already tackled this challenge.
Second, we must improve data collection so that we know the extent to which
persons of color are being inappropriately targeted by law enforcement and can take steps
to restrict such actions. (Congressman John Conyers is preparing legislation to
60
accomplish this, which I support. Indeed, the legislation should be broadened to ensure
we have adequate data to monitor several aspects of fairness in the administration of
justice.)
Third, we must use the full force of our civil rights law enforcement agencies to
correct situations in which persons of color are being inappropriately targeted by law
enforcement. Specifically, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department
investigates the most serious allegations of this sort; I believe this work is vital to public
confidence in the criminal justice system, and needs the ongoing support of U.S.
attorneys as well as state and local officials.
60
6
[Cite to Conyers legislation on data collection on race and administration of justice.]
(III.4)-47
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 77, 7999
Finally, we should encourage all levels of law enforcement to develop and explain
clear policies concerning racial profding. Both our officers and the general public
deserve that. At the federal level, I have instructed the Attorney General to prepare an
Executive Order for my signature that will establish policy throughout all of federal law
enforcement, and provide an example to state and local jurisdictions that have no policy.
That order will prohibit the use of race or ethnicity as a factor for general screening of the
population in all contexts, with one limited exception. I want to leave law enforcement
officials with the possibility of making a special case for the use of race or ethnicity, but
only by providing a detailed public justification and instituting reliable mechanisms to
collect data and monitor their practice to detect and correct any abuses. Any exceptions
would have to be specifically approved by the responsible Cabinet Officer, and would
require periodic reconsideration.
I believe this strong presumption against any use of race or ethnicity is consistent
with our values, and with a vision of One America in which we build diverse
communities, replacing stereotypes with trust. But I want to leave the door open just a
crack for the possibility of extraordinary justifications. For example, the career
professionals at the Immigration and Naturalization Service believe there are some
situations close to the southwest border in which the problem of illegal crossings and
alien smuggling is so serious that the Border Patrol must do some "random" car stops,
(III.4)-48
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
and there is no reasonable alternative to using apparent ethnicity as one of several factors
in their selection of cars to stop. Although this procedure is constitutionally permissible,
none of us should feel comfortable with it. Inevitably, citizens and lawful residents will
be stopped, largely because of the way they look. They are made to pay a cost for the
border security we all want. We should not ignore that cost. Instead, we should insist that
their impositions (on our behalf), as policy, are very carefully justified by their true
contribution to law enforcement and the absence of alternative strategies. That means
careful data collection. And it means the policy must be monitored to minimize abuses. I
have asked the Attorney General to address thoroughly all of these concerns.
•
Eliminate police brutality
No issue looms larger than the issue of police brutality. We all know many of the
most egregious incidents, from Rodney King to Abner Louima to Amadou Diallo. We
have all read the headlines: "New York Police Officer Accused of Brutalizing Haitian
Immigrant." We have also lived through the community violence and racial unrest that
such incidents can spark. But what we must understand is that to many persons of color,
incidents of police brutality are more than just discrete, horrific acts; they are seen as
harbingers of what could happen to them if they are caught in the wrong place at the
wrong time with the "wrong" kind of officer. That lack of trust is a reality, and it is
(III.4)-49
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
corrosive.
But there is another reality. Most police officers are, quite simply, heroes who do
an extremely difficult job with fairness, honor, and skill. Furthermore, most officers
abhor the improper use of force because it hurts their legitimacy, makes their jobs more
difficult and, most importantly, is inconsistent with their responsibility to enforce the law.
When we take action against police misconduct, we are not taking action against our law
enforcement officers, we are taking action to support good law enforcement and to
protect all citizens from crime. Simply put, police brutality is a violent crime made more
vile by the fact that it is committed under the supposed authority of the state, by servants
of the community, and sometimes appears, when it does occur, to be motivated by racial
or ethnic prejudice.
1 want to make two points here: First, we know too little about police use of
excessive force. As of 1994, federal law requires the U.S. Department of Justice to
collect and analyze data on excessive use of force. A preliminary report, for example,
suggests that police use of force against anyone is infrequent—occurring in
approximately one percent of police-citizen encounters—but that a disproportionate
61
number of these incidents involve persons of color. This preliminary study is very
61
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
(III.4)-50
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
limited, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics is conducting a more comprehensive analysis.
What is clear is that all levels of government can do a much better job monitoring police
use of force and communicating to police and citizens that excessive use of force is
unacceptable and will be punished. That is what both professionalism and fairness
require.
But, second, apart from the need for better monitoring and information, we must
acknowledge that excessive use of force against persons of color still occurs. There are
just too many examples, some horrific, to ignore the problem. Later in this book, I will
challenge communities across the nation to formulate workplans to help achieve their
vision of a healed, "opportunity community" in a just One America. I believe that any
such community workplan must include a determined effort to root out police brutality
and punish those who commit it.
I pledge whatever advice and assistance the experience and resources of the
federal government can offer, because police brutality is destructive of the trust so
essential to community law enforcement. We know some of what works. Police leaders
have found certain training to be helpful, including how to communicate across racial
lines, how to de-escalate situations, and how to use force only in appropriate
circumstances and in appropriate ways. It helps to have clear mechanisms for dealing
(III.4)-51
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
with allegations of excessive use of force that include clear chains of management and
independent review. And finally, federal and state prosecutors must be prepared to
combat brutality through appropriate enforcement actions, because these are crimes in
which the victims include the community and justice itself.
•
Reduce disparities in incarceration rates and sentencing
While persons of color make up less than one-third of our nation's population,
62
they make up more than two-thirds of the state and federal prison populations.
Blacks
account for 43 percent of arrests, 54 percent of convictions, and 59 percent of prison
63
admissions for violent crime. Moreover, America has a greater percentage of its
64
citizens behind bars than any other nation in the world/ except Russia. These rates of
imprisonment and racial disparities are disconcerting regardless of the cause and, as I
have argued, we must take bolder steps to prevent crime and recidivism. However, in
terms of fairness in the administration of justice, the key question is to what extent are
present disparities caused by discrimination in the administration of justice. Most of us
believe that discrimination is a very small factor, but some of our citizens feel otherwise.
62
63
Changing America, supra note
64
[We are re-checking this.]
, at 57, Chart 5.
(III.4)-52
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
Still more of us believe that, even if there is not discrimination, there is some subtle role
of racial difference and color that has stacked the deck.
The answer to the question of whether there is discrimination in the
administration of justice should not be, "We don't know there is discrimination." The
answer must be, "We know there is not discrimination, and we have processes in place to
ensure that." Clearly, we're not there yet.
Having said that, the best available evidence indicates that most ofthe existing
disparities in the administration of justice—from arrest through sentencing—are not due
to discrimination, but are primarily due to underlying disparities in the commission of
crimes: once the crime is committed, the rates of arrest, conviction and imprisonment do
not seem to differ significantly by race. For example, a recent analysis by the U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) compared racial differences in arrest rates for several
violent crimes to data from a national survey of crime victims concerning the race of their
assailants. GAO found no significant difference between the two, suggesting that
65
controlling for criminal offending, arrest rates do not differ significantly by race. In
addition, a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics tracked
65
See letter from Laurie E. Ekstrand, Associate Director, Administration of Justice Issues,
General Accounting Office to the Honorable John Conyers (January 20, 1984).
(III.4)-53
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
more than 10,000 adult, felony defendants in the nation's 75 largest cities through all
stages of the criminal justice process. The study, which focused on black and white
defendants, found that the defendants were equally likely to be prosecuted and convicted,
66
and received the same sentence regardless of race.
Finally, there are a few key areas in which disparities in the administration of
justice raise immediate, greater concerns of discrimination. Racial disparities in drug
arrests and sentencing are dramatic. In part, this is an unintended consequence of the war
on drugs. Let me be clear: I believe that drugs, drug use, and especially drug trafficking
should be unlawful and subject to punishment. Drugs destroy individuals, families, and
communities, and threaten the strength of our nation. However, we cannot ignore the
disproportionate impact that drug laws and enforcement have had on persons of color in
America. Blacks, for example, are approximately five times more likely than whites to
67
be arrested for drug-related offenses.
The war on drugs is a war for our communities and children, not a war against
66
See Patrick A. Langan, /Vo Racism in the Justice System, in The Public Interest 48 (Fall
1994) (The study did find that blacks were more likely than whites to receive a prison sentence
(though prison sentences were or equal length); however, that disparity appears to be explained
largely by factors other than race... Id. at 50-51.)
67
Patrick A. Langan, The Racial Disparity in U.S. Drug Arrests, U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (October 1, 1995).
(III.4)-54
�Part 111, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
them. That is why 1 have urged increases in support for prevention and treatment. This
also means making sure kids get the message on drugs, and we have launched at the
federal level a $200 million anti-drug media campaign to promote that message.
However, this also means revising drug policies and practices that have an unjustified
negative impact on persons of color. Chief among these is the present gap in sentencing
for crack versus powder cocaine. Under present federal law, possession of 5 grams of
crack cocaine triggers a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, the same sentence imposed
for possessing 500 grams of powder cocaine, a 100:1 ratio. Black defendants comprise
86 percent of those convicted in federal court of crack cocaine offenses, compared with
68
35 percent of those convicted of powder cocaine offenses. There are some legitimate
justifications for treating crack cocaine offenses more harshly than powder cocaine
offenses, but, as the Advisory Board on Race said in its final report, the disparate racial
effect of the present policy and the racial division it engenders make the present 100:1
ratio "morally and intellectually indefensible." I believe we should, in effect, lower the
sentence for crack cocaine while raising the sentence for powder cocaine to reduce the
present sentencing disparity to 10:1 and, thereby, reduce the reality and perception of
unfairness.
Second, racial disparities in the juvenile justice system are even greater than in the
68
(III.4)-55
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
adult system and less clearly explained by legitimate factors. [There is a major DOJ
initiative here under OJJDP requiring states to reduce disproportionate minority
confinement of juveniles. But most plans appear to pursue this as a disparity issue,
promoting better prevention programs for minority youth. We are still exploring this, but
will discuss it either here or as part of the section on keeping youth out of crime and the
administration of justice.]
•
Increase diversity in law enforcement
Police and prosecutors, judges and jurors, are officers of our society empowered
on behalf of all of us to enforce the laws and serve us all. Quite simply, they are likely to
receive greater trust and confidence when all persons in society see themselves reflected
in those officers. When it comes to diversity in law enforcement, we are, to some extent,
caught in an unfortunate cycle. Increasing minority representation in law enforcement
would likely increase trust in law enforcement among citizens of color. But the lack of
trust and confidence in law enforcement among persons of color likely makes it more
difficult to attract minority law enforcement officers.
We have made some important gains in diversifying law enforcement. In 1993,
(III.4)-56
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
persons of color comprised 18 percent of all police officers in local police and sheriffs
departments across the nation and 30 percent of all officers in larger cities. Since that
time, our COPS initiative has helped fund nearly 100,000 additional police officers in
communities across the nation. And one goal of that initiative has been to increase
diversity in law enforcement. Furthermore, I am proud that, as President, I have
appointed several minorities to some of the country's top law enforcement posts and
appointed more persons of color as federal judges than any other President in our nation's
history. We must continue this progress at all levels of government and in all segments of
the criminal justice system.
***
D. CONCLUSION
All that we have talked about—ensuring public safety, keeping young people out
of crime, and guaranteeing fairness in the administration of justice—is crucial to
building One America. We can no longer ignore the crime and fear of crime that
threatens some of our American communities and too many of our fellow citizens. Nor
can we ignore the frustrations of many Americans of color who too often experience
injustices at the hands of our criminal justice system.
(III.4)-57
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
But I do not think you can talk about crime in America, especially the
proliferation of crime and violence among young people of color in deeply poor
communities, without talking about the values and the lessons we teach our young
people. A child's world view—whether positive or negative—is formed early in life,
not only by the love or lack of love we show them, but also by the investments we
make or don't make in their futures, the values and images we present them through
the media, and the opportunity or lack of opportunity that surrounds them. We cannot
be satisfied when some states spend more on prisons than education, or when America,
the land of the free, has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Doesn't it
make more sense to invest in our children at the front end of their lives—in education,
in prevention, in strong communities—than to pay at the back end by building more
and stronger prisons in which to warehouse them? We cannot talk about race and
crime in America without talking about our commitment, as parents and as a nation, to
embrace all children as our own and to give them something to say yes to.
***
(III.4)-58
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 3, Crime
March 17, 1999
[Editorial Endnotes on Crime]
a.
This statement must be coordinated with decision on INS/Border Patrol use of profding.
b. What role? Retail distributor? Courier?
c. I removed "including crack cocaine" because I recall reports that crack use has stabilized, not
declined, please check.
d. [We will check on the status of this project?]
e. Describe a current DOJ Civil Rights Division case on this issue, in human terms.
f. Please reconfirm with DOJ. There have press accounts that say, highest among democracies, or
highest among industrialized nations. Would seem like Russia counts under either of those
categories.
(III.4)-59
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
PART III: THE OPPORTUNITY WE DESERVE
[Introduction to Part III]
[Sections 1-4]
5. CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
A.
INTRODUCTION
In 1994,1 held a historic meeting at the White House with American Indian and
Alaska Native tribal leaders from the over 500 federally recognized tribes. For most of
them, it was their first ever visit to the people's house. I hope it is not the last. Native
Americans occupy a special place spiritually, culturally, and historically in America. In
1998,1 had the pleasure of hosting a White House conference on economic development
in Indian country. There I met a young man named Dominic Ortiz from the Prairie Band
Potawatomi Nation. Dominic graduated from Haskell Indian Nations University, one of
this country's tribal colleges, and transferred to the University of Kansas to major in
accounting. While at Haskell, Dominic started his own successful business. Dominic's
business is not only thriving, but it has allowed him to finance his education. Dominic
embodies the entrepreneurial spirit sweeping through Indian country. Just as he is
creating his own future, we must give all Native Americans the support and tools they
(III.5)-1
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
need to determine their own futures through their own acts and decisions.
We are living in a time of great prosperity and hope. Our economy is the
strongest in a generation. For the first time in three decades, the budget is balanced.
There are nearly 18 million new jobs, wages are rising at more than twice the rate of
inflation, home ownership is at its highest rate in history, and unemployment is at its
lowest in almost thirty years.
But, for many Native Americans, the picture is quite different. American Indians
lag behind the general U.S. population on many socioeconomic measures. According to
the 1990 Census, the median family income of American Indians was $21,750, about 62
percent of the $35,225 median for all families. And this gap appears to be widening. In
1979, 27 percent of American Indian persons were living below the poverty level
compared to 12 percent of the U.S. population. By 1989, 31 percent of American Indians
1
were living in poverty compared to 13 percent of the U.S. population.
The Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota is one of the poorest places in
America. The stark beauty of the vast plains contrasts with the harsh existence of the
people who live there. Housing is scarce, overcrowded, and often lacking indoor
plumbing, electricity, or telephones. There is no industry, no factories, and no
technology. Two of every three adults living on the reservation are out of work. The
(III.5)-2
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
average life expectancy for the Oglala Sioux men who live there is 56.5 years, and for
2
women, it is 66 years. Similar conditions exist on reservations across our nation where
the lack of paved roads, telephone lines, and other physical infrastructure serve as major
barriers to economic development.
Today we have a real opportunity to expand prosperity to every corner of our
nation. Indian Country and Native Americans must not be left behind.
Before Europeans landed on America's shores, Indian nations were self-governing
societies with remarkable scientific, artistic, and cultural achievements. The 558
federally-recognized tribal governments are a permanent part of the political structure of
our Nation. Since the founding of our nation, the United States has recognized many
3
Indian tribes as "domestic dependent nations" with sovereign powers over their members
and territory and has entered into numerous treaties with various tribes pledging
protection and guaranteeing tribal self-government. It is because of this unique status
between the federally recognized tribal governments and the United States that Indian
status under federal law is characterized as a political rather than a racial or minority
4
classification.
(III.5)-3
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
In 1831, Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that the United States has a
5
special trust responsibility to protect Indian tribes. That trust responsibilities is
manifested in treaties, agreements, court decisions, statutes, executive orders, and in the
overall course of dealings between the federal and tribal governments. These executive,
legislative, and judicial actions charge the United States Government with legal and
6
moral obligations ofthe highest responsibility and trust toward Indian Tribes. Under
federal law, the United States has a legally enforceable fiduciary responsibility to protect
tribal lands, assets, resources, treaty rights as well as a general obligation to fulfill the
mandates of federal laws with respect to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Regrettably, our nation has not always lived up to these legal and moral
commitments. Between 1778 and 1871, when the last treaty was signed, Indian tribes
ceded millions of acres of land to the United States. In treaties of cession, tribes
generally retained or "reserved" lands or rights in lands in exchange for certain federal
protections, services, and benefits, such as law enforcement, education, medical care, and
technical and agricultural training. All too frequently, these solemn promises made in
treaties were broken. Our failure to invest sufficient resources to meet these obligations
has hindered the social and economic advancement of Native Americans and has
produced economic conditions on many reservations more analogous to those of thirdworld nations than of communities in America's heartland.
(III.5)-4
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
We also must bear in mind that our nation often has pursued policies that have
undermined the capacity of tribal governments to advance the social, economic, and
institutional development of tribal communities. As well-intended as these policies may
have been in the minds of those promoting them, efforts to coerce the assimilation of
Native Americans served largely to weaken and destabilize the very institutions bestsuited to serve the community ~ tribal governments. The time has come to break
decisively with the past and stop trying to impose conditions on tribes. As reflected in
my executive order on tribal consultation, we must work with tribes on a government-togovernment basis, recognizing their ability to steer their own course and set their own
priorities.
Economic Development
Economic and business development is clearly a top priority in virtually every
tribal community. Even though economic conditions in Indian country have improved in
recent years, American Indian and Alaska Native communities continue to lag behind the
rest of the United States with respect to social, economic, and educational attainment
levels. Complicating factors such as geographical isolation, under developed
infrastructures, and demographics, add to the challenges confronting tribes as they work
toward a better standard of living and quality of life for tribal peoples.
As the new millennium dawns, there is reason to be hopeful, however. A small,
(III.5)-5
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
but significant number of tribes have succeeded in reducing poverty and unemployment
through the aggressive pursuit of new economic activities. Tribal gaming operations
have produced the most dramatic success stories. What began with a handful of tribal
7
bingo halls in the early 1980s has grown into a more than $7 billion a year industry. The
revenues from gaming have allowed some tribes to pursue economic development
strategies such as starting new business enterprises, investing in infrastructure, and
building concert halls, sports arenas, and golf courses. Gaming tribes are viewing the
revenues from gaming as the key to improving the lives of each of their members as well
as enriching the entire community.
As lucrative as it has been for some tribes, gaming is not a panacea for every tribe.
While over 200 tribes have gaming operations, only a small portions of tribes accounts
8
for a majority of total gaming revenues. Revenues from the development of natural
resources such as timber, minerals, and oil and gas remain a major source of income for
tribal governments, and farming and ranching continues as a way of life for many
reservations residents. Nonetheless, the mere fact that numerous tribes have achieved
significant, sometimes dramatic, measures of success appears to have stimulated a
growing sense of optimism throughout Indian Country.
Securing business loans and mortgages is often difficult for individuals in poor,
minority communities, but, in Indian Country, it is virtually impossible. Conventional
(III.5)-6
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
approaches to resolving this situation are problematic on reservations and other Indian
trust lands because of the peculiar legal status of such lands, particularly in the case of
mortgages. Reservation land is owned by the federal government and held in trust on
behalf of tribes. This trust status and legal protection is extremely important from the
perspective of Indian landowners, but there are trade-offs. Banks are extremely reluctant
to make loans without collateral or the ability to foreclose on a property in the event of a
default. To extend the availability of loans for homes on Indian trust lands without
breaching the trust doctrine, the Departments of Housing and Urban Development,
Agriculture, and Veteran's Affairs have authority to issue government-insured loans. The
process, however, is complex and time-consuming requiring coordination between at
least two separate federal agencies.
I believe that every American should have the opportunity to own their own
home. That is why as part of the first-ever White House Conference, "Building
Economic Self-Determination in Indian Communities," I announced a One-Stop
Mortgage Center Initiative to streamline lending procedures, coordinate the federal
agencies involved in providing support for mortgage lending on reservations, and
encourage greater private-sector lending. I am also pleased that the Treasury
Department's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund is in the process of
developing a study and action plan, which will identify barriers to private lending and
investment in Indian country and will recommend solutions in order to increase access to
(III.5)-7
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
capital and credit for Native American populations.
Education
As I have said many times, one of the essential keys to economic and human
development is education. It is critically important that American Indian and Alaska
Native students receive the same educational opportunities that are available to other
students as these children are the future for their tribes and their communities. The
Native American population is young ~ 39 percent ofthe American Indian population
was under 20 years old in 1990, compared with 29 percent of the Nation's total
9
population. We must work with tribes to ensure that future generations of Native
Americans, descendants of the great warriors such as Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, are
able to forge successful lives, whether on or off the reservation.
Elementary and secondary education is normally thought of as the domain of state
governments, but, out of its trust responsibility, the United States is responsible for two
school systems ~ one serving the children of military personnel and the other serving the
children of tribal communities. Of the 185 BIA-fiinded elementary and secondary
schools on reservations today, approximately half of the buildings are over 30 years old,
and approximately 20 percent are over 50 years old.
(III.5)-8
10
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
I have made education one of the top priorities of my Administration. I have
challenged the public schools of this country to hire better teachers, to become more
accountable, to fund school construction andfixcrumbling buildings, and to wire every
classroom to the Internet. These same challenges are even more crucial for BIA-funded
schools. With buildings crumbling and decaying, it is nearly impossible to wire these
classrooms to 21st century technology. It would be a grave injustice to fail these
children. We have a special obligation to prepare them for the future. This is a problem
throughout America. That is why I have proposed substantial increases in funding for
school construction and repair, with one-half of the bonding authority allocated to the 100
school districts with the largest number of low-income children. This bonding authority
is a powerful tool which permits the leveraging of local resources to build new schools
and make much needed repairs to older schools. Traditionally, tribes have been denied
this tool in order to repair and replace schools on the reservations. For the first time, I
have proposed bonding authority for tribes with a mechanism to ensure principal
repayment. This authority will empower the Tribes to make significant changes in their
communities.
Although we must work to improve the BIA-funded schools, we must also work
to ensure that the public school system serves American Indian children. Just as in the
rest ofthe population, about 90 percent of American Indian children attend local public
schools, while only about 10 percent attend BIA-funded schools." These children face
(III.5)-9
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
unique challenges. Approximately 50 percent of American Indian fourth-graders scored
12
below the basic level in reading and mathematics.
I am proud that I signed an executive order designed to improve the academic
performance of American Indian and Alaska Native students in grades K-12. This
executive order institutionalizes a process to ensure that there is strategic planning with
respect to Native American students. One of the first outcomes of this process is my
proposal to begin training and recruiting 1000 new teachers for areas with high
concentrations of American Indian and Alaska Native students. This initiative provides
financial assistance to students who commit to teach in the targeted areas, provides
assistance for the creation of programs to train teachers, and allows for continuing
education to ensure that the quality of teachers remains high.
As we improve elementary and secondary education for Native American
students, we must make a college education a reality for each and every American Indian
child. Less than two-thirds of Native Americans are high school graduates compared
with 75 percent of the rest of the population, and less than 10 percent of Native
13
Americans have bachelor's degrees compared with 20 percent of the total population. I
have fully supported this country's 30 or so tribal colleges. These institutions, located
directly in Indian communities, provide the chance for a college education to students
who do not have the funds to attend more expensive private schools or the means to leave
(III.5)-10
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
their families behind to attend schools that are hours away. Studies show that only about
35 percent of Native Americans who enter mainstream institutions as freshman
14
graduate.
Finally, the cultures of American Indian tribes are a rich part ofthe heritage of
this country. The maintaining of Native languages and cultures is critical. Yet, there is
an alarming decline in the use of Native languages indigenous to the United States. We
must work with tribes to preserve the rich native languages and culture.
Crime
While we have made remarkable strides in fighting violent crime throughout the
nation in the last several years, tragically, in the same period of time, violent crime has
been on the rise in Indian country. Recently, the Department of Justice, in its first
comprehensive analysis of Indians and crime, reported that American Indians are victims
15
of violent crimes at more than twice the rate of the rest of the country. In contrast to the
rest of the country, where nine out of every ten murders involve victims and offenders of
16
the same race, about seven in ten violent victimizations of American Indians involved
an offender who was of a different race. Use of alcohol was a major factor in violent
crimes involving American Indians. American Indian victims reported a drinking
offender in 46 percent of all violent victimizations, such as rape, sexual assaults,
robberies, and other assaults, about 70 percent of jailed American Indians convicted for
(III.5)-11
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
17
violence reported that they had been drinking at the time of the offense.
Gangs are also no longer only the province of inner cities. Youth gangs are
becoming more prevalent in Indian country. While some of the conditions which lead to
gangs elsewhere such as extreme and pervasive poverty, lack of role models, and limited
opportunities probably overlap, we must do more to understand the unique nature of
gangs in Indian country.
Indian communities often have other unique law enforcement problems. While
soaring homicide rates have shortened life expectancy for black men in urban areas, the
death toll on reservations often results from motor vehicle accidents and suicides. For
American Indians, suicide is the eighth leading cause of death. Accidents are the third
18
leading cause of death on Indian reservations.
Part of the problem is clearly a lack of police officers and other law enforcement
resources. While there are 2.8 police officers per 1,000 citizens in rural counties
nationwide, there are only approximately 1.4 officers per 1,000 citizens on Indian
19
reservations. There are only about 2,000 BIA police and uniformed tribal officers
patrolling 56 million acres of Indian lands in the lower 48 states, protecting more than 1.4
million residents. By contrast, 3,600 police officers protect the 540,000 residents of our
20
Nation's capital. In addition, departments often are so woefully under funded that
(III.5)-12
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
patrol cars are most likely to be 10 years old, with the odometer showing more than the
60,000 miles that federal regulations say should be the maximum. Most Indian police are
armed with old six-shot revolvers instead of the semiautomatic weapons that most other
police departments have, and most officers do not have bullet-proof vests.
Law enforcement on reservations is also hampered by the overall geographic
isolation, the vastness of the area to be covered, and the lack of adequate emergency
support services in tribal communities. Many officers must drive hundreds and hundreds
of miles to assist other officers. The Navajo Nation alone is 26,500 square miles. It is
incomprehensible that a police officer must venture alone, out manned and outgunned,
into an immense wilderness, not knowing whether this day of duty will be his last. Like
many others in poor, minority communities, many American Indians have lost faith in the
criminal justice system. There is a perception that the federal government has turned its
back on helping to protect these communities.
In order to make Indian people feel safe in their homes and in their communities
and to restore some trust and confidence in law enforcement, I have made law
enforcement in Indian country a priority. Since 1995, the Justice Department's Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services has awarded approximately $68 million through
395 grants to 187 Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages. These grants have funded the
salary and benefits for almost 900 police officers in Indian Country. In 1997,1 directed
(III.5)-13
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior to collaborate on a plan for a new
organizational structure for Indian law enforcement that streamlines budgeting and
identifies manpower needs. In addition, I asked Congress for a significant increase in
funding for law enforcement and public safety in Indian Country, including funds for new
tribal police, detention facilities, juvenile justice programs, and tribal courts, as well as
additional FBI agents and Bureau of Indian Affairs officers, so that we might
dramatically improve public safety in Indian Country.
The Interior and Justice Departments' joint law enforcement initiative will
significantly increase federal law enforcement resources in Indian Country. During the
first year of the program, 30 additional FBI agents, 32 new BIA criminal investigators,
and over 200 new BIA police officers, detention officers, and radio dispatchers will be
deployed. In addition, through the COPS program, tribal governments will be provided a
series of flexible options to address specific and critical community needs by hiring new,
fully trained and equipped community police officers or by equipping and training current
police personnel. Increasing law enforcement personnel in Indian Country only addresses
part of the problem. We should work with tribes to assist in providing alcohol and drug
abuse prevention programs, as well as juvenile delinquency prevention initiatives.
Through extensive federal-tribal consultation, it is evident that tribes and tribal
communities view economic development, education, and crime prevention as the three
(III.5)-14
�Part 111, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
areas in need of immediate attention. In the rest of this section, I will offer three separate
centerpiece proposals outlining how the federal government can provide leadership in
each of these areas. This will be followed by a comprehensive workplan, proposing how
the entire nation, working together, can close the opportunity gaps in Indian country.
B. CENTERPIECES OF THE FEDERAL WORKPLAN
(1)
Comprehensive Educational Mentoring and Record Tracking
for Native American Students
While we have made significant strides in improving the quality of education for
Native Americans, several formidable barriers remain. We must do more to open the
doors of college to every American Indian student who wants to take that step. Only
two-thirds of Native American students successfully complete high school—far fewer
21
than other students.
I suspect that one of the big reasons for this is that many Native
(III.5)-15
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
American students routinely transfer back and forth from BIA-funded schools to public
schools near their reservations. It is believed that this process interrupts the educational
process, diminishing a student's ability to advance in a normal fashion. Having a
student's records spread between two or more school systems also makes it more difficult
for teachers to adequately assess a particular child's skill levels. Currently, we do not
keep statistics on this phenomenon. As part of my Comprehensive Educational
Mentoring and Record Tracking System , I am proposing significant changes to rectify
this problem.
Through this mechanism, we would keep statistics on the number of American
Indians students who interrupt their education by transferring between BIA-funded and
public school systems. We would also conduct research on the consequences of this
activity. Finally, we would put in place measures to ensure that a complete record of a
student's progress is kept in a single location.
Mentoring and tutoring can also help pave the way to higher achievement and
higher education for Native American students. Students who receive mentoring or
tutoring on a regular basis are more likely to complete high school and go on to college. I
am proposing that we work closely with tribal governments, school administrators, and
the tribal citizenry to set up a mentoring and tutoring program for American Indian
students. This program could collaborate with AmeriCorps and the National Senior
(III.5)-16
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
Service Corps. Older students, senior citizens, or other adults in the community can play
a major role in preparing a young person for higher education. The mentors could work
with students and help them as they advance from grade to grade and ensure that they are
on the right track to college. I believe that this new mentoring program will succeed in
increasing academic performance in Indian schools.
Mentoring can also serve to help preserve Native American culture and language.
We should work with tribes to come up with to increase the participation of tribal elders
in mentoring. Just as the tribal colleges construct themselves to reflect tribal culture, a
part of this proposal is to create groups of students who are assigned to a tribal elder to
help support their educational activities. Without recognizing and preserving their
culture, these students often are disenfranchised because they do not have any role
models. Elders will serve this function by providing guidance and a positive influence to
students. Elders can also teach students about tribal history, language, arts, and culture,
on their road to a college education. We encourage all schools to create opportunities for
the involvement of elders in programs, activities, and mentoring. A two-tier mentoring
system can vastly improve the chances that American Indian students will be equipped to
obtain a college degree.
(2)
Model Community Initiative for Encouraging Economic Development
(III.5)-17
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
Essential to the building of One America is the need to bring growth and
opportunity to Indian Country. As it is in every other community in America, the private
sector must be the engine of growth in Indian Country. But the Federal government can
help by catalyzing private sector growth; by supporting development ofthe infrastructure
necessary to set the stage for such growth; and by helping to provide education and
training to give Native Americans a better chance to succeed in our modern economy.
One of the best ways to promote economic development within tribes and tribal
communities is through the fostering of an entrepreneurial culture. Entrepreneurship and
small businesses have always been the backbone of a strong American economy. And
these are the keys to job creation and our continued leadership in the global economy of
st
the 21 century. We must work with Indian country to find ways to capitalize on the
strengths of small and medium-sized businesses in order to diversify the economies of
each and every community. We must provide the tools and assistance Tribes need to
nurture home-grown firms, encourage innovation and risk-taking, and enhance
investment in new businesses.
Finding the start-up money for new businesses and new building is a daunting
task for anyone, but, as I said earlier, access to capital is next-to-impossible in Indian
communities. I am proud that the Community Development Financial Institutions
(CDFI) Fund, which works alongside mainstream institutions in expanding access to
(in.5)-18
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
capital in low-income communities, has begun several successful activities in Indian
Country. The CDFI Fund has invested in a number of Native American-owned CDFIs
and CDFIs serving Native American communities. For example, the Fund made a $1
million grant to First American Credit Union, which provides basic financial services to
15,000 Native Americans throughout Arizona and parts of New Mexico and Utah,
helping leverage capital to support small agricultural and Native American craft
businesses. The CDFI Fund is also conducting a study on barriers to lending and
investment, and will make recommendations for ways to expand access to capital in
Indian Country.
I also have made the provision of equity capital to new markets a priority with
my proposed "New Markets Initiative." I propose to spur investment for business growth
in low and moderate income rural and urban communities, including Indian Country,
with initiatives such as targeted Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs);
BusinessLINC, which helps link larger businesses to smaller firms; and legislation for tax
credits and New Markets Venture Capital Firms, which would provide capital and
technical assistance to small businesses. Finally, 18 American Indian and Alaska Native
tribes were selected to participate in the Round II Empowerment Zones (EZs) and
Enterprise Communities (ECs). Indian tribes are participating in two of the five EZs,
including the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota and the
Desert Communities EZ in California with three participating Indian tribes. Of the 20
(III.5)-19
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans.
March 17, 1999
ECs, eight include tribal entities. Under these programs, the federal government provides
tax benefits for businesses,flexiblegrants to carry out comprehensive revitalization
strategies, and the ability to apply for waivers from federal programs enabling local
communities to better address their particular needs.
We also must all work together to ensure that the dream of home ownership
becomes a reality in Indian Country. Under my Executive Memorandum, HUD and
Treasury, in conjunction with the Interior Department and tribal partners, are helping to
streamline the mortgage lending process in Indian Country, cutting down the barriers to
private sector home mortgage lending. In addition, HUD, in close cooperation with tribal
leaders across the country, is working to create a national housing model called "Shared
Visions" to build and renovate affordable housing on tribal lands and to help more Native
Americans become homeowners. This model strives to increase the number of
affordable, quality homes and to make it easier for Native Americans to obtain mortgages
by encouraging private sector partnerships, streamlining federal regulations, and
improving coordination among federal agencies and tribes. As part ofthe project, a
nonprofit will be established to provide financial help, low-cost financing, down payment
assistance, and home ownership counseling.
Finally, we must help tribal governments to invest in technology infrastructure.
Many places on reservations do not have telephones, computers, or Internet access. The
(III.5)-20
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
Department of Commerce is conducting a study to identify the infrastructure technology
needs in Indian country and will set forth proposals to address these needs. The federal
government, along with Tribes, states, and the private sector, must work together to
ensure that reservations are hooked up to information technology and that the
infrastructure to support this technology are put in place.
By focusing federal resources on improving economic development in Indian
Country through creating an entrepreneurial culture, providing access to capital,
encouraging home ownership, and investing in technology infrastructure, we will help
tribal governments bring growth and opportunities to Indian Country.
(3)
Tribal-Based Law Enforcement Initiative
A safe community provides the foundation upon which economic development
can flourish for all Native Americans. But we must fight crime and ensure public safety
in Indian country the right way. That means developing federal-tribal-private
partnerships that respect tribal sovereignty while making sure that much needed resources
are used to improve the quality of life in Indian Country.
Community policing has been the cornerstone of my Administration's law
enforcement initiatives. This model provides a community-based approach to law
(III.5)-21
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
enforcement, by providing flexibility in identifying problems, and creating a partnership
between citizens and law enforcement. This model fits well with Indian country with each
community having unique but overlapping problems with other Indian communities.
A broader vision, however, is necessary to address the unique needs of tribal
communities more comprehensively. That is why I am proposing the Tribal-Based Law
Enforcement Initiative. This initiative is based on the idea that comprehensive
strategies and coordinated funding are the most effective way for the federal government
to assist communities in addressing local problems. There are three primary objectives:
(1) to gather insights and information from local leaders to form the basis for effective
solutions to their law enforcement problems; (2) to address community problems in a
comprehensive way through effective planning and appropriate funding; and (3) to
promote inter-tribal exchanges of ideas and experiences, as well to promote coordination
among tribes for more efficient use of resources. Here's how it would work:
•
Through the use of technical assistance, the federal government will work with
tribes, on a government-to-govemment basis, to help them identify the unique law
enforcement and public safety problems in their community. Tribes will assess
their communities' need and priorities and develop appropriate strategies to
address them. Through this process, the communities will develop a
comprehensive plan to address law enforcement and public safety concerns.
(III.5)-22
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
•
March 17, 1999
The communities will use these plans to apply for law enforcement funds in a
new, coordinated process with one application rather than on a piecemeal basis.
This will ensure that the communities can maximize the use of federal funding in
a coordinated, problem-solving manner. The goal of this project will be to help
Indian communities develop comprehensive strategies for improving public
safety.
•
The project will have an evaluation component and tribes will be encouraged to
set performance goals for reducing crime.
•
This project should be expanded at successive phases to tie into other agencies
besides the Department of Justice. Particularly in Indian communities, a large
portion of the crime problems are tied to alcohol and substance abuse. In order to
address these problems in a comprehensive way, law enforcement should work in
tandem with other federal programs to solve the underlying cause of many ofthe
incidents of crime.
This initiative will empower communities to solve their law enforcement
problems at a local level and in a comprehensive manner, and rebuild a sense of
confidence in law enforcement in Indian country.
(III.5)-23
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
C. A WORKPLAN FOR THE NATION
In addition to federal leadership, there is much that we all can do in the areas of
education, economic development, and law enforcement to improve the lives of Native
Americans as we work to build One America. The Nation's efforts should focus on the
following goals:
•
Eliminate disparities for American Indians in the public school system;
•
Enhance learning for Native American Children through early childhood
education which honors cultural traditions.
•
Promote cooperation between the federal government, States, local governments,
and the private sector to invest in economic development in Indian country;
•
Invest in infrastructure in Indian country, both in technology and through
transportation systems; and
•
Build cooperation to ensure public safety in Indian communities and provide
positive influences for Indian youth to stay out of crime.
(III.5)-24
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
(1)
March 17, 1999
Eliminate disparities for American Indians in the public school system
American Indian students attend schools operated by state, federal, and tribal
governments. As stated earlier, about 90 percent of American Indian students attend state
public schools. Because of this, there is a great opportunity for the states, localities, and
tribal governments to work together to ensure that Native American students have equal
access to high quality curricula, teachers, classrooms, and materials.
In overcoming the gaps in educational opportunities, several unique factors
affecting American Indian students, such as high student mobility rates, high drop out
rates, and high teacher turnover rates, should be taken into account. There are
opportunities for intergovernmental regulation of student transfers and the development
of memoranda of understanding about common educational issues and concerns.
While there are unique issues affecting American Indian and Alaska Native
students, I believe that as we work to give all American students the world-class
education they deserve, we will see some of the most dramatic gains in our hardest
pressed communities. In addition to specific support for Native American students and
(III.5)-25
�Part Ul, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
families, we must overcome gaps in K-12 educational opportunity; provide for highquality teachers; ensure access to challenging courses; repair and replace old and
dilapidated schools; provide technology and training; end social promotion; and hold all
of our students to high expectations. If we do all this, we will have made tremendous
strides in ending the disparities that plague too many of this Nation's Native American
students.
(III.5)-26
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
(2)
March 17, 1999
Enhance learning for Native American children through early childhood
education which honors cultural traditions
American Indian children often do not come to school ready to learn. They have
often had to face serious health and safety issues. Often they do not have access to early
childhood education programs, which are linguistically, culturally, and developmentally
appropriate. The Bureau of Indian Affairs funds over 20 Family and Child Education
(FACE) projects, which serve over 1,500 families. The FACE program provides early
childhood opportunities for Indian children with curricula and activities that recognize
their unique culture and educational needs. All schools systems must focus on early
childhood and pre-school programs so that Indian children are given greater assistance
that meets their unique educational needs. These programs should promote school
readiness, enhance native language development, and increase the potential for learning
among young American Indian and Alaska Native children.
(3)
Promoting cooperation between the federal government, States, local
governments, and the private sector to invest in economic development in
Indian country
We must encourage more cooperation between state, local, and tribal
governments. Because of the sovereign status of tribes, states cannot directly tax tribal
(III.5)-27
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
governments. Along with this lack of ability to directly tax tribes, there is a
misperception that Tribes do not contribute to the local economy and that revenues flow
from states to tribes, but not in the other direction. One study estimates that the annual
spending by reservation residents, tribal governments, and reservation-based businesses
create over 300,000 jobs and generates $10 billion in wage and salary income in the
national economy. Locally, reservation residents, tribal governments, and reservationbased businesses create $246 million in annual tax revenues for state and local
governments. Reservation residents spend some $3.1 billion of their $7.4 billion annual
household income off the reservation for consumer goods and services. Tribal
governments and reservation-based businesses together purchase consumer goods and
22
services off-reservation totally over $5.5 billion annually. From these statistics, it is
clear that state and local governments should work in partnerships with tribes to develop
economic strategies for entire regions.
(4)
Invest in infrastructure in Indian country, both in technology and through
transportation systems
Because of their often remote locations, American Indian and Alaska Native
communities stand to benefit greatly from the Information Age, yet are in grave danger of
being left behind. A recent Department of Commerce study on Internet and computer
usage in American shows that, although many more Americans now own computers,
(III.5)-28
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
minority and low-income households are still far less likely than white and more affluent
households to have personal computers or access to the Internet. Even more disturbing,
this study reveals that this "digital divide" between households of different races and
23
income levels is growing. States, local governments, tribes, the federal government,
and the private sector must all work together to ensure that Indian youth have the access
to the Information Age in their classrooms and that Indian communities have access for
economic development. We must also continue working with tribes to build roads and to
develop water and wastewater systems, including solid waste disposal.
(5)
Build cooperation to ensure public safety in Indian communities and provide
positive influences for Indian youth to stay out of crime
Tribal communities are among the youngest population groups in America, and
many tribal youth are at risk. The development of youth gangs has been a disturbing
trend in Indian Country, and many tribal youth lack for role models and opportunities. It
is thus critically important that we develop strategies for creating a more stable
environment for tribal youth in both the short and long term.
Through the Department of Justice's "Volunteers for Tribal Youth (VTY)"
Program, we will build a federal-tribal partnership project designed to help American
Indian tribes enhance or create sustainable community-based volunteer programs. These
(III.5)-29
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
programs will be specifically aimed at creating positive opportunities for youth and
reducing youth and/or gang violence. The Department, working in partnership with 18
federal and national non-profit organizations, will work with tribal communities to
identify opportunities for volunteers, including elders, to serve as mentors, tutors, and
positive adult role-models for American Indian youth. To that end, this program intends
to provide tribal communities with thefinancialresources, training, technical assistance,
organizational guidance, networking assistance, and other resources necessary to create
and sustain community-based volunteer programs.
CONCLUSION
Despite this nations tragic history, we now have a chance, working together with
tribes, to make sure the first Americans take their rightful place as part of One America.
Tribal communities stand at the threshold of a new era, filled with the promise of greater
prosperity and a higher quality of life. Native American children must have the same
opportunities to succeed in our thriving economy as any child. And Native American
families must be given the tools to live out their dreams and fulfill their God-given
potential. We can make this a reality in the coming millennium if we acquire a better
understanding of our sacred and constitutional commitments to American Indians and
Alaska Natives and then take the necessary steps to end discrimination and close the
(III.5)-30
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
opportunity gaps.
Endnotes
1. 1990 Census, The American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut Population.
2. U.S. Patterns of Mortality by County and Race: 1965-1994, Harvard Center for Population
and Development Studies, 1998.
3. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1. 12 (1831).
4. Morton v. Mancari. 417 U.S. 535. 554 n.24 0974).
5. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 11 (1831).
6. SeminQk Nation v, United States, 316 U.S. 286,297(1941).
7. National Indian Gaming Commission, 1997. Check
8. National Indian Gaming Commission. Check.
9. 1990 Census, The American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut Population.
10. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior. Check.
11. Where get this?
12. 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).
13. 1990 Census, The American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut Population.
14. USA Today, April 13, 1998.need better cite
15. "American Indians and Crime," Department of Justice (February 1999).
16. CEA report
17. "American Indians and Crime," Department of Justice (February 1999).
(III.5)-31
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 5, Native Americans
March 17, 1999
18. Trends in Indian Health. Department of Health and Human Service, Indian Health Service,
1997.
19. FBI's Uniform Crime Report.
20. Washington Post, February 15, 1999.
21. 1990 Census.
22. Prepared statement of Robert F. Robinson, President of the Center for Applied Research,
Inc., submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Economic Development
Hearing, April, 1998.
23. "Falling Through the NET II: New Date on the Digital Divide," Department of Commerce,
1998.
(III.5)-32
�4»!
I l l K \\ II I T K n o t SI
WASHIM,
rov
March 26, 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Phil Caplan^fUv
Attached for your review is one of the missing sections of the
race book -- Part III: The Opportunity We Deserve.
Edits/comments to Todd Stem by COB March 30.
. J
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
PART I I I : T H E OPPORTUNITY W E D E S E R V E
[Introduction to Part III]
[Sections 1-3]
4. A RENEWED COMMITMENT TO CIVIL RIGHTS
A. INTRODUCTION
On a hot August day in 1963, the civil rights movement in America reached a
watershed moment when hundreds of thousands of citizens of all colors joined in the
famous March on Washington. As a 17-year-old boy growing up in the rural South, I was
inspired by the determination of those who boarded buses and organized car-pool
caravans, some traveling thousands of miles, intent on redeeming the unfulfilled promise
of America. "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence," said Martin Luther King, Jr. at our
memorial to The Great Emancipator, "they were signing a promissory note to which
every American was to fall heir.... We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in
(III.4)-1
�Pari III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
the great vaults of opportunity in this nation."
The vision ofthe peaceful warriors of that time has moved us further down
freedom's trail and much closer to our ideal of One America. In a twenty-year period, we
built the indispensable legal foundation for our progress on issues of equality and
1
2
opportunity, including such legislation as the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the
3
Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as landmark court cases such as Brown v. Board of
1
Education (striking a mortal blow at "separate-but-equal" Jim Crow laws) and Griggs v.
5
Duke Power Co. (establishing the practical effectiveness ofthe antidiscrimination
statutes laws). And while I have said that civil rights for a new century must include the
rights to educational and economic opportunity as well as community security, we cannot
move forward without addressing continuing civil wrongs rooted in continuing
discrimination.
Although the finish line remains some distance away, in the last several decades,
we have made great strides in prohibiting discrimination in the law. We have also built a
strong national consensus around the belief that all Americans should have equal access
to opportunities without regard to race. As a result, much of the overt racial prejudice
and hatred that has plagued our nation for centuries has been dramatically reduced. As
the Advisory Board on Race said in its final report, "Those who argue that there has been
no change. . . and that racism is an unchanging fixture in American life are, in our
(III.4)-2
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
6
observation, incorrect."
Yet, more covert and subtle impediments to our goal of equal opportunity persist.
Today, discrimination often occurs beneath the surface and is difficult to see. As I stated
in The America We See, we do not have all the answers about the nature and extent of
discrimination in America, and we need to do a better job of collecting and analyzing
data. But based on what we now know, it is clear that discrimination is still an
unfortunate fact of life in America.
My Advisory Board made this prescient observation: "[N]ow, more than ever,
racial discrimination is not only about skin color and other physical characteristics
associated with race; it is also about other aspects of our identity, such as ethnicity,
7
national origin, language, accent, religion, and cultural customs." Still, some might ask
why, in an era of relative racial calm, without streets erupting in racial unrest, do we need
a renewed focus on civil rights law enforcement. To me, and many other Americans, the
answer is clear. While overt racial prejudice has diminished, the discrimination of today
is often more camouflaged. In a sense, this makes it more dangerous: If you are denied a
job, apartment, or prompt service in a store on the basis of bigotry that is never expressed,
and even cloaked in politeness, then you have no signal telling you to object, to fight. In
order to build One America, to finish the work that we have started, it is vitally important
that all Americans understand that discrimination — intentional or not, obvious or
(III.4)-3
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
camouflaged - still exists and that each of us has the opportunity and responsibility to
help eradicate it. This is about more than enforcing laws. It is about living up to our
values and keeping our promises.
I
et me offer three recommendations, which in tum are the focus for the
J workplan I propose for the nation in this arena:
We need to strengthen our laws and enforcement strategies to complete the
traditional antidiscrimination agenda;
We need to define an enforcement agenda to meet the new challenges of
racial and ethnic justice; and
We need to prevent law violations by fundamentally reducing racial
tensions and promoting reconciliation.
Let me elaborate. First, we must have strong civil rights enforcement because our
basic antidiscrimination laws and principles are still violated far too often. There are still
too many instances of hate crimes, too many times when people of color face
discrimination in stores and other retail establishments, and too many people waiting for
an administrative agency or a court to deal with their discrimination complaint about
matters as fundamental as a job or a place to live. Our civil rights laws cannot be slogans
about justice. They are tools with which to build justice, and we must use them more
(III.4)-4
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
skillfully than ever. In many areas, we should consider new enforcement approaches,
such as more support for voluntary compliance, or for mediation of disputes. Essentially,
the goal of local, state and federal enforcement of antidiscrimination laws should be
simple: remedy discrimination wherever we find it, and protect against it everywhere.
Second, as we tackle this traditional antidiscrimination agenda, we must begin to
focus on the new civil rights I have spoken about by ensuring that the antidiscrimination
laws and ideals are applied effectively in such areas as education, health care, stopping
worker exploitation in sweat shops and environmental justice. Recall Dr. King's
admonition that the laws securing formal civil rights are only a foundation for erasing the
opportunity gap. Our successful work strengthening America's prosperity has helped
deepen and broaden opportunity, but it also gives us a foundation upon which to build,
and again, the antidiscrimination laws are one tool in that effort.
Finally, we must give individuals and communities the tools they need to make
effective civil rights a reality at the local level. The federal government, through such
efforts as the Justice Department's Community Relations Services, can be a partner in
easing racial tensions, and should have an expanded mission to help support sustained
local action directed at reconciliation. But I also believe we can have prevention and
progress of an even more fundamental sort by working with students to teach them the
history, meaning and purposes of our civil rights laws. After all, that's one of the best
ways to teach them about the America we want.
(III.4)-5
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
* * *
B. CENTERPIECE OF THE FEDERAL WORKPLAN:
STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS AND A STRENGTHENED ENFORCEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE
With our unprecedented economic strength, it is all the more intolerable that there
are still doors to opportunity that are padlocked by prejudice. The simple business of
enforcing antidiscrimination laws should be a bipartisan commitment. Very few of the
specific laws are controversial, so we should be able to agree on at least this much:
enforce the law, and promote voluntaiy compliance with it.
That is why I have proposed substantial new investments to strengthen civil rights
enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels. Although money by itself will not
achieve our civil rights goals, a strong enforcement agenda depends on a sufficient level
of resources. For the 1999 budget year, I proposed and Congress enacted the largest
increase in funding for civil rights enforcement in nearly two decades. I am committed to
continuing this progress, and have therefore proposed a second round of investments for
8
the 2000 budget, bringing the two-year increase to 28% percent. (See text box)
Both now and in the years ahead, however, the federal workplan must be more
(III.4)-6
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
than added resources: First, we must act strategically to put the federal investments
where they will do the most good. Second, we must continually explore fresh approaches
to winning greater compliance with the law, using tools that complement our litigation.
Third, we need better coordination among the agencies and the White House to keep
everyone focused, to share strategies, and to forge partnerships with our state, local and
private enforcement partners. And fourth, we need to hold ourselves accountable, and do
a better job of teaching the wider public about these issues. To that end, we must
establish a permanent program of ongoing data collection to provide the best achievable
measurements of the extent of discrimination in various sectors of American life. Let me
explain each of these a bit more.
Investing strategically: There are several particular areas where what we do in the
next few years can have an important effect on the national effort to build One America.
Here are some examples:
•
The Federal government should lead all ofthe nation's enforcers by working to
eliminate the unconscionable backlogs in processing discrimination complaints.
That is why we are making important new investments in the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, while the Commission continues to streamline
operations which are complex, duplicative, and unwieldy.
(III.4)-7
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
Civil Rights Enforcement (Budget Authority in Millions of Dollars)
1998 Actual
2000
Proposed
% Change
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
242
312
28.9%
HUD: Fair Housing Activities
30
47
56.7%
DOJ: Civil Rights Division
65
82
26.2%
DOJ: Civil Rights Enforcement Partnerships
-
5
NA
DOL: Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs
62
76
22.6%
DOL: Civil Rights Center
5
6
20%
Education: Office for Civil Rights
62
73
17.7%
HHS: Office of Civil Rights
20
22
10%
USDA: Civil Rights Programs
15
19
26.7%
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
9
11
22.2%
DOT: Office of Civil rights
6
8
33.3%
EPA: Office of Civil Rights
2
2
--
Subtotal:
518
663
28.0%
Similarly, people should have to look no further than Washington for leadership
in thefightagainst hate crimes. Our investments in the Department of Justice will
help us put the full force of federal power behind that effort.
Because a quality education is so fundamental, the Department of Education must
(III.4)-8
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
increase its vigilance and creativity in ensuring that school districts that receive
Federal funds obey the antidiscrimination laws in their allocation of all resources
- from quality teachers to roof repairs to computers.
•
And, because the rapidly changing demography in many communities can create
new enforcement problems, the enforcement agencies must make sure that their
caseloads reflect the new realities. For example, there may be housing
discrimination against a new population of Asian immigrants in a Midwest city,
or language discrimination against Hispanics in a Southern community more
accustomed to black-white issues.
There are other examples, but the principle is simple: if we can't solve every
problem, we have to make the enforcement choices most likely to bring about systemic
improvements leading to One America. That also means trying new approaches.
New approaches: Like other federal activities, civil rights law enforcement has to
be conducted within a framework of fiscal discipline and competing national priorities. It
is increasingly important to use the best social science evidence we can to help target
investigations and enforcement where our actions will have the greatest impact on
opportunity and on the public's understanding of racial and ethnic justice. For example,
the kind of matched-pair testing I described earlier as one tool for detecting
(III.4)-9
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
discrimination, can help agencies identify regions or sectors where problems are most
severe. Federal enforcers can identify and develop the best practices of this sort and
share them with their state and local colleagues.
But enforcement is a last resort, because the laws will be most effective when
voluntary compliance is highest. Part of our civil rights success is that most Americans
now embrace the principle of nondiscrimination. We can make even greater strides by
helping people of good will understand how to evaluate their own practices and avoid
even inadvertent actions that are unfair and perhaps illegal. Several federal agencies have
taken important steps to promote voluntary compliance, and this effort will be
increasingly critical in the years ahead. For example, the EEOC will provide employers
across the country with the tools to evaluate and improve their pay policies, so that they
may voluntarily make their employment practices fairer. I should also say that
straightforward advice about what the law requires, delivered professionally by
enforcement authorities, will be an antidote to the swirl of misinformation that too often
confuses the public about what is or is not lawful, especially concerning affirmative
action.
Finally, being smart with federal investments means recognizing that enforcing
the antidiscrimination laws is a responsibility we share with other levels of government. I
have proposed to Congress that the Justice Department award competitive grants to state
(III.4)-10
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
attorneys general - a Civil Rights Enforcement Partnership - to help demonstrate
effective strategies. Just as we have tried to use federal resources to support states and
localities in their fight against crime, we should do more to support their fight against
discrimination.
Improved coordination: Earlier in my Administration I issued a directive
establishing an interagency working group on civil rights enforcement. That collaboration
has been valuable, but I believe we can do more. I have now instructed my White House
chief of staff to convene on a regular basis a senior working group on civil rights
enforcement to be composed of both cabinet and subcabinet officials. I expect this group
to do four things. First, to review and resolve any policy issues that are languishing in the
bureaucracy. Second, to ensure that enforcement agencies are working cooperatively and
sharing insights and resources as appropriate. Third, to establish effective avenues of
communication with those outside the federal government concerned with civil rights
enforcement issues. And finally, to give me a written report every month. In addition to
consultations with state and local enforcement authorities, this group will also seek input
from public interest organizations, both liberal and conservative, who may want to offer
suggestions about how to improve our performance. At the agency level, the Civil Rights
Division of the Justice Department will continue to be "first among equals" in the effort
to bring coherence to the varied work of federal enforcers, and will be strengthened in
that role by the increased resources in my proposed budget. As a down payment on this
(III.4)-11
�Part I f f , Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
aspect ofthe federal workplan, 1 have budgeted $65 million for the Justice Department's
Civil Rights Division — a 19-percent increase over last year and the largest increase in
nine years.
Measuring discrimination: All of these efforts, however, must be tied to results,
because if today's enforcement tools and methods can't get the job done, we must find
better ones. Moreover, the confused public discussion of where we are on race cries out
for better information. The sad fact is that we know much more about how we are doing
at producing soybeans and machine tools, and how many television sets are in use on
Tuesday at 9:00 p.m., than we do about how much discrimination there is in such areas as
housing, employment, ordinary dealings in a retail store, access to insurance or a bank
loan, fair expectations for a child from his or her teachers, and fair treatment when a
health professional prescribes a medical procedure (or doesn't). This must change.
My workplan requires a renewed commitment to change, and we need
information to gauge our progress, focus our investments and continually improve our
strategies in the years ahead. I believe the Federal government should take the lead,
working closely with the best researchers, in developing a consensus set of social science
tools to measure discrimination and publish a regular report card on how America is
doing. I have asked Congress for the funds to launch this effort, building on valuable
research over the years at several agencies, especially HUD. I envision this as a
(III.4)-12
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
collaborative effort of several federal agencies: the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the
Council of Economic Advisers, the National Science Foundation, as well as the
independent National Academy of Sciences.
Authoritative information ought to be one of the guiding forces in policy debates
on race. I know that research alone can't dissolve prejudice or bring opposing sides
together. But the great majority of our people are idealistic enough to want a better
community, and practical enough to value information that will help us build it.
* * *
C. A WORKPLAN FOR THE NATION
To build one America, we must:
•
Strengthen our laws and enforcement strategies to complete the traditional
antidiscrimination agenda;
•
Define an enforcement agenda to meet the new challenges of racial and ethnic
justice; and
(III.4)-13
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
•
March 24,1999
Prevent law violations by reducing tensions and promoting reconciliation
As 1 have said, these are not
federal responsibilities alone. Indeed,
they are not the responsibility of
governments alone. At root, our laws
are a formal statement of our civic
ideals and mutual commitments. They
have a moral basis, and a moral force
in our lives that should not depend on
The Foundation: Modern Race-Related
Civil Rights Laws
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited
discrimination based on race, color, religion, or
national origin in: various places of public
accommodation; in employment; and in any
federally assisted program, such as local
schools or hospitals. The Civil Rights Act of
1968, prohibits racial discrimination in the sale or
rental of housing; this also includes "steering"
clients to specific neighborhoods on the basis of
race or subjecting them to discriminatory
application procedures. The Voting Rights Act
(1965) prohibits states and localities from
denying or abridging the right to vote on account
of race, color, or membership in a language
minority group.
the constant presence of a government
investigator or prosecutor. As with everything from sidewalk litter to freedom of speech
or religion, the most important kind of enforcement is that which we do in our private
lives in defining and pursuing the kind of community we want.
(1)
Strengthening Civil Rights Laws and Enforcement Strategies
The ground-breaking federal civil rights laws of the 1960s have provided a basic
safety net for millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed our society.
Nevertheless, I believe that important gaps in civil rights law, and their enforcement,
(III.4)-14
�March 24,1999
Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
remain.
Eliminate hate crimes
There is nothing more
Hate Crimes:
Administration Accomplishments
important to the future of this country
As part ofthe 1994 crime legislation, the Hate
Crimes Sentencing Act provides longer
sentences for hate crime offenses. In 1996
alone, enhanced sentences were applied in
27 cases.
The Church Arson Prevention Act, supports
prosecutions of racially motivated arson and
desecration against houses of worship.
The Administration established the National
Church Arson Task Force to oversee the
investigation and prosecution of church
burnings across the country. This Task Force
combines over 200 FBI, ATF, and Justice
Department officers alongside state and local
colleagues.
than our standing together against
intolerance, prejudice, and violent
bigotry. No American should be
subjected to violence on account of
his or her race, color, national origin,
religion, sexual orientation, gender or
disability. Americans of conscience
were horrified by the vicious murder of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, Texas and the cowardly
torture-murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. But we must do more than shake our
heads in shame—we must back up our outrage with tough sanctions against those who
perpetuate these crimes. Hate crimes are criminal acts driven by bias against another
9
person's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. In 1997, the FBI
10
reported 8,049 incidents of such crimes. Of these, 5,546 were based on the victim's
race or ethnicity. It is suspected that many more go unreported. My administration has
stood strong against hate crimes through vigorous prosecution under the civil rights
statutes. Since 1989, over 500 defendants have been convicted on federal criminal civil
(III.4)-15
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
rights charges for interfering with the federally protected rights of minority victims.
I am proud of what we have done to combat hate crimes, but there is much more
to do. First, we must continue to enforce our civil rights laws vigorously. Under
Attorney General Janet Reno's leadership, the Justice Department has taken aim at hate
crimes with more prosecutions and tougher punishments. To increase our effectiveness,
we have assigned 50 more FBI agents and prosecutors to work in this area, and the
Justice Department has marshaled the support of every United States Attorney to
establish or strengthen community enforcement strategies to combat hate crimes. As an
education tool, the Justice Department is also spearheading the creation of hate crime
resource guides for teachers, law enforcement personnel, and state and local prosecutors.
Second, we must pass a Hate Crimes Prevention Act because all Americans
deserve protection from crimes of hate. Under our current law, the federal government
would not have had the authority to prosecute James Byrd Jr.'s killers. Other than
verbally condemning the actions of the three white men—at least one of them an avowed
racist—who chained Mr. Byrd to a pickup truck in the predawn darkness and dragged
him to his death, we would not have been able to use the power of the state to sanction
this crime. We must close this gap in the law. This crucial legislation would expand the
ability ofthe Justice Department to prosecute hate crimes by removing needless
jurisdictional requirements for existing crimes. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would
(III.4)-16
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
obviate this problem. In Jasper, Texas, the state prosecutors have performed their job
heroically. Let's make sure that all Americans have such redress. Our federal officers
must have the authority to work in concert with state and local law enforcement agencies
to end hate crimes.
In addition to removing jurisdictional barriers, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
would strengthen current law by giving Federal prosecutors the power to prosecute hate
crimes committed because ofthe victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. As in
the case of James Byrd, Jr., the federal government did not have the legal jurisdiction to
prosecute Matthew Shepard's murderers. Matthew, a 21-year old college freshman, was
beaten in the dead of night, tied to a fence, and left to die alone. He was attacked because
he was gay. At Matthew's funeral, his cousin predicted that "Matt will have made a
difference in the lives of thousands." I want to make sure he does. Congress should enact
a bill that sanctions all hate crimes on an equal basis.
Opponents ofthe civil rights legislation in the 1960s often said, "You can't
legislate morality." It is true that a statute cannot exorcize hate-that is a personal demon
that calls for a moral cleansing. But law does have a function in proclaiming our values
and teaching right from wrong. In that sense, over time, law can squeeze hate out of our
public lives and eventually out of all but the most diseased hearts. The starting point is to
make violent acts of hate against our neighbors a federal crime. And we should do it.
(III.4)-17
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
This heinous conduct strikes at the heart of what it means to be an American and at the
ideals that define our nation.
Expand the antidiscrimination laws to cover stores and retail transactions,
under Title II ofthe 1964
Civil Rights Act
On April 1, 1993, 21 members
of my Secret Service detail were
preparing for my visit to the Naval
Academy and stopped for breakfast at
a Denny's Restaurant outside of
Annapolis, Maryland. Fifteen of the
agents, who were white, were served
quickly. Six African American
officers, however, waited for nearly an
hour. As it turned out, their food had
been ready for 20 minutes, but no one
served it to them. Fortunately, in this
case, it turned out that the federal
Denny's Makes Amends
Not so long ago, the Denny's restaurant chain
was synonymous with racism and was busy
settling lawsuits brought by minority customers.
Fortunately, Denny's recognized it had a
problem and responded in dramatic fashion- in
fact, Fortune magazine has named Denny's as
one of the top 50 companies for Hispanics,
Asian Americans and blacks. Leadership
counts. In 1995, Jim Adamson took over as
CEO and put into place a four star strategy:
loosen up on the hierarchical environment,
make diversity a criterion for managers, require
all staff to attend workshops on racial sensitivity
and emphasize the importance of diversity. The
results? Denny's percentage of minority officen
and vice-presidents and above has risen from
zero in 1993 to 11% in 1996. In 1993, there
were no nonwhites holding the position of
director, racial minorities now hold 20% of those
obs. As late as 1993, only one Denny's
franchise was owned by an African American.
Minorities now own 35% of the company's 737
franchised restaurants, and Akin Olajuwon, an
African American, is the chain's second-largest
franchisee. Denny's is a shining example of
how one company is making good faith efforts
to respond decisively beyond the requirements
of the law in order to heal racial divisions and
bring diversity into the workplace.
government had the authority to
(111.4)-18
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
enforce the agents' civil rights under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That federal
law entitles all persons to the full and equal enjoyment of "public accommodations"
without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.
But Alonzo Jackson was not as fortunate. He was the young African American,
honor roll student who, in 1995, entered an Eddie Bauer clothing outlet in Fort
Washington, Maryland—wearing a shirt he had purchased at the store the day before. A
security guard accused Alonzo of shoplifting the shirt he was wearing and demanded to
see a sales receipt. When Alonzo was unable to produce the receipt, the guard forced him
to remove the shirt and exit the store. Only when he returned with the sales slip that
evening did the store return the shirt. When this story was first reported in the
11
Washington Post, I was outraged, because unlike in the case of my Secret Service
agents, the federal government had no authority to protect Alonzo's rights.
As Title II is currently written, the federal government has jurisdiction over a
limited number of public accommodations, including hotels, restaurants, movie theaters,
sports arenas, and gas stations. We do not, however, have jurisdiction over many retail
establishments and other enterprises that provide everyday goods and services including
clothing stores. Thus, despite the fact that Civil Rights Division ofthe Justice
Department receives numerous reports of discrimination based on race or national origin
in the provision of everyday goods and services by retail establishments, and despite the
(III.4)-19
�Part HI, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
fact that social science research and everyday experience tell us that such discrimination
12
is all too common, the Federal government often lacks authority to respond. Our
limited authority discourages individuals from bringing important complaints to our
13
attention and undercuts our ability to redress and deter discrimination. And it probably
discourages victims from finding out whether there are state or local laws that might
provide a remedy, too.
We need a stronger federal law. I support amending Title II to extend antidiscrimination protections to establishments that provide goods and services to the public.
The Justice Department should also have authority to seek monetary damages for proven
violations; we need more than the defendant's promise just to not do it again. (I also
believe gender should be added to the list of protected classes.) This is not, however, only
a federal responsibility. I urge state and local authorities to ensure that they have strong
statutes against discrimination in retail businesses, and to consider proven instances of
such discrimination in licensing decisions wherever appropriate.
The common indignities faced by many citizens of color when they go shopping,
or to a restaurant, or attempt to rent a car or repair a television are so at odds with the
America we want and so corrosive, that they cannot be tolerated. Our laws should express
that value, and judges and juries should provide lessons when necessary.
(III.4)-20
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
•
March 24,1999
Defend affirmative action programs and promote voluntary compliance
The Supreme Court recognized in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena that, "the
unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination
against minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not
disqualified from acting in response to it."
14
It is my view that not only is the federal
government not disqualified from responding to the practice and impacts of racial
discrimination, we have an active responsibility to do so. That is why in July of 1995,1
stood in the Great Rotunda of the National Archives and pledged my Administration's
support for affirmative action as one ofthe tools we still need in order to open up
opportunities, combat discrimination, and promote inclusion.
We have made much progress. The civil rights gains ofthe last 50 years have
brought us from Jim Crow to a new era. Yet, there is still much work to do. We continue
to face egregious cases of bias, ranging from hate crimes to landlords who refuse to rent
to people based on their race or ethnicity. We are also confronted with more subtle, but
no less offensive forms of prejudice these days. The recent study of medical treatment
published in the New England Journal of Medicine proves that despite our best efforts,
and even in the absence of intentional racism, some physicians treat patients with
identical symptoms differently — the only differentiation being the race and gender ofthe
patients. Thirty years ago, our nation made a clear and strong statement against
(III.4)-21
�Pan III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
discrimination. Led by a Republican President and a bipartisan Congress, America
firmly embraced the principles of affirmative action.
Affirmative action began simply as a means to an end of enduring national
purpose -- equal opportunity for all Americans. It is time to recommit ourselves to this
principle. Richard Nixon and his advisers argued, based on experience under the civil
rights statutes, that saying "Thou shalt not discriminate" is not always enough to break
bad habits or outright bigotry. They were right. Since then, there has been much
confusion about what affirmative action is and isn't. Here is what I mean:
Affirmative action is any policy or practice in which race, ethnicity,
gender, or disability is used as a factor in decision making. It encompasses
a range of techniques, from simple outreach and recruiting, to "thumb-onthe-scale" decisions about, for example, how to allocate resources or
whom to hire. Affirmative action must be carefully justified, either by a
need to remedy or prevent discrimination, or by a well-reasoned need for
inclusion. And it should never be used if there are reasonable, effective
alternatives available, or if the purposes of the policy have been achieved.
Affirmative action does not mean numerical quotas-that is, rigid numerical straight
jackets. Indeed, except in very rare court-ordered situations, quotas are illegal and always
(III.4)-22
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
have been. Nor is affirmative action, when done the right way, a policy under which race
and gender trump merit. I believe, instead, that in order to achieve merit and excellence
we have to both prevent discrimination and try our best to be inclusive, so we get the
benefit of everyone's talents.
As I discussed in Part I I , The America We Want, 1 fully recognize how
controversial this issue has been and is likely to remain. But racial progress has always
been controversial, so the disagreements alone must not be enough to cause us to abandon
a tool that remains effective and needed. There is ample empirical evidence showing that
affirmative action not only works but that no other approach could produce the same
results. Most recently, this was emphatically confirmed by the work of the former
15
presidents of Princeton and Harvard, William Bowen and Derek Bok. Their book, The
Shape of the River, is a comprehensive review of the benefits and costs of affirmative
action in college admissions. In conducting their study, Bowen and Bok found that
modest efforts, which opened the doors of higher education to many who otherwise
would have been shut out, produced compelling benefits. Young people admitted
through race-conscious admission programs did as well as their peers, both in college and
in later life. An earlier work by Charles Moskos and John Sibley Butler, All That We Can
Be, documented the same benefits in our military, particularly the Army.
16
But we should always be willing to scrutinize these programs for fairness. In
(III.4)-23
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
1995,1 called for a top-to-bottom White House review of affirmative action. We found
irrefutable evidence of continuing discrimination that could only be addressed through a
continued reliance on affirmative action. Affirmative action continues to be an important
tool in our fight to close opportunity gaps, such as those 1 described in Part I , The
America Wc Sec.
But our review also showed that there was room for improvement. In some cases,
we found that a program was poorly designed to advance its mission. In other cases, the
design was fine, but circumstances had changed without the program being updated. I
directed our agencies to review their programs, and to modify or terminate those that did
not comply with the standards of fairness. As you can see in the text box below, my
Administration has taken seriously its charge to mend our use of race in federal programs.
At the same time, we have held firm to our commitment to giving all Americans a chance
to develop and use their talents, to be full partners in our common enterprise.
f I ^here is one other area of affirmative action policy that demands national
. A . attention—the growing dangers of resegregation in education. Earlier, I
mentioned the problem of deepening racial isolation in elementary and secondary
schools, and the importance of using affirmative action strategies to promote inclusive
classrooms. Also pressing, however, is the threat from attacks on affirmative action in
selective colleges and universities.
(III.4)-24
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
Agency Affirmative Action Programs That Were Terminated or Modified
Department of Defense Rule of Two. The Rule of Two program set aside procurement
contracts for bidding by Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), where the contracting
officer found that there were two or more qualified SDBs that could perform the contract.
While there may be some limited circumstances in which this process might be permissible
due to significant disadvantages hindering the ability of minority firms to compete, DoD was
not limiting the practice to these circumstances. We directed DoD to end this method of
issuing contracts to SDBs. Department of Education Graduate Assistance in Areas of
Need. This program provides grants for fellowships to students from "under represented
groups" pursuing postgraduate degrees in areas of national need - primarily science and
mathematics. We directed the Education Department to target their outreach and recruitment
efforts on under represented groups, but that they not limit fellowship opportunities to minority
students. Department of Energy Subcontracting Practices. The Energy Department was
authorizing its Management and Operating Contractors - generally its national laboratories -to set aside some subcontracts for SDBs. We directed the Energy Department to discontinue
authorizing the use of set asides as an approved means of achieving subcontracting goals.
Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration Minority Business
Enterprise Program. This program benefited only minority firms and not disadvantaged
firms generally. The program also applied a uniform 15% goal on all recipients. The
Department has altered the program. Department of Commerce Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program. Congress directed the Department of Commerce
to seek to increase the number of minorities and women in the management of public
television stations. We worked with the agency to develop a new system permitting
applicants to demonstrate that they are responsive to program diversity in a number of ways
and not limited to showing significant minority and female representation in management
positions. Department of State Minority Fellowship Program. This program provided
minority applicants with a special track into Foreign Service positions. The State Department
has since made significant changes in the program, both in program selections and in the way
in which selected persons qualified into the Foreign Service. HUD's Section 202 and
Section 811 Supportive Housing Programs. Section 202 and Section 811 are statutory
programs under which HUD funds the development of housing for elderly persons and for
persons with disabilities. For both programs, HUD had used three race-conscious criteria for
selecting the nonprofit organizations to develop the housing. We directed HUD not to limit the
bidding to minority-owned firms, but only to assess the ability of firms to provide housing to
minority communities. Department of Energy Scholarship Programs. We directed the
Department to revise a scholarship program so that scholarships were no longer limited to
minorities in New Mexico, but instead were available to students attending New Mexico
colleges without the use of racial criteria.
(III.4)-25
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to permit government entities
to use affirmative action provided it is done the right way—with a compelling
17
justification, and narrowly tailored means. The Court and Congress have also made it
clear that our civil rights laws permit private individuals and organizations to use
18
affirmative action as well. There is, nevertheless, a well-organized, albeit misguided
movement around the country to outlaw the use of race as a factor in admissions.
My support for properly tailored affirmative action policies to create diverse
student bodies is infonned by the knowledge of what race-blind admissions policies reap.
In California, after the passage of Proposition 209, the two flagship public universities
saw dramatic declines in admissions for both Latinos and African Americans. The first
class to enter University of California (UC) Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law after
Proposition 209 had only one African American student. Some Americans have
misconstrued these results as confirmation that "merit" has won out. This could not be
further from the truth. Using a simple set of test scores and grades to pick a college class,
treating them as though they are a complete and accurate assessment of merit, is like
picking a football team based on who runs the 100-yard dash the fastest. Speed is only
one factor in football. Blocking, passing, kicking and reading defenses are among the
other essential elements of the game. So it is in education ~ test scores and grades are
not the complete measures of merit. The "merit" argument of most affirmative action
critics reflects a twisted and narrow notion of merit that is widely and vigorously rejected
(ni.4)-26
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
by the leaders of higher education—the very people most directly involved in assessing
what makes an institution excel. The use of race as a factor in school admissions can be
done without compromising true merit—the full-range of qualities needed to make an
institution excel at its mission—be it a world-class education, or public safety in a police
precinct.
UC Berkeley turned away 800 African American, Latino, and American Indian
students with 4.0 CPAs, not because they were unqualified, but because of a political
decision that barred inclusion as a consideration in the admissions decision. I believe that
such decisions not only close off opportunities for minority students unjustly, but also
deprive non-minority students of a valuable opportunity to leam from and with a richly
diverse set of peers. Those students will be less well prepared for the society and
economy they will lead. And all of us will be poorer for it.
I also want to take this opportunity to respond to those who attempt to use
affirmative action for partisan advantage as a wedge issue. Some have tried to pit
communities against one another. They tell one group that it has suffered because
another group has prospered. They claim, for example, that Asian Americans will be
harmed by race-conscious policies, particularly in the context of college admissions. If
affirmative action were practiced by applying restrictive quotas, then Asian Americans
would be harmed. Restrictive quotas, however, are a distortion of affirmative action and
(III.4)-27
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
I believe they are wrong. As Professor Frank Wu of Howard University and others have
demonstrated, this divisive tactic blatantly misrepresents the intention and effects of
affirmative action. It directs all of us to think along the lines of nothing more than selfinterest and encourages us to believe in the false notion that whatever helps one of us
must necessarily harm someone else. We know this to be false, and should continue to
think of affirmative action as a means for expanding opportunities for all Americans.
To clear up this and other misunderstandings about the use of race based
admissions policies in higher education, my Administration will work with colleges,
universities, and graduate schools to promote constitutionally sound affirmative action
policies, as well as to ensure that the public at large has an opportunity to leam the truth
about the benefits of affirmative action in higher education. We will commit to offering
guidance to institutions of higher education, and we will continue to defend against
challenges to proper affirmative action policies in court. Beyond that, I will continue my
work, strengthened by the efforts ofthe White House Office on the President's Initiative
for One America, to educate the public on the value of affirmative action.
Affirmative action began as a bipartisan effort. For most of its existence, it has
enjoyed support from people who have recognized the values, regardless of their
ideological backgrounds. Major corporations have embraced it, and introduced
innovations in its application. Public opinion surveys consistently show that a majority
(III.4)-28
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
of Americans believe racial discrimination is wrong and are willing to put in place
reasonable policies to address it. Yes, we should look to the day when remedies such as
affirmative action are no longer needed to equalize opportunity in America. But until we
reach that day, affirmative action, done the right way, can help us move forward. I repeat
what I said in 1995: "Mend it, don't end it."
broader issue, of which affirmative action is only one element, is
_JL voluntary compliance with antidiscrimination laws, and voluntary efforts
to bring about opportunity and inclusion consistent with our vision of One America. In
the discussion of the Federal centerpiece of this work, I stressed the importance of
making strategic, smart investments, including investments in the technical assistance
and public information that will help people who want to do the right thing. I believe that
this same emphasis is important for other levels of government and for the private sector.
D. EXPAND SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR A L L AMERICANS
As I have said, the next frontier of our civil rights agenda is the expansion of
opportunities for all Americans. I have talked about expanding educational and economic
opportunity and guaranteeing community security as new civil rights for a new century.
(III.4)-29
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
Here I want to mention several issues where there is a specific law enforcement
dimension to the workplan:
combat discrimination in K-12 educational opportunity;
•
combat worker exploitation;
combat discrimination in health care;
•
conduct an accurate census as the foundation for voting and allocating resources;
and
•
ensure environmental justice, so that minority communities are not poisoned by
indifference.
When we close the opportunity gap in these areas, our nation will be stronger to meet
next century's challenges.
Combat discrimination in K-12 educational opportunity
I began my discussion of the workplan to build One America with a blueprint for
closing achievement and resource gaps in education. Eliminating continuing racial
disparities in education must be our highest priority. As we have seen, many of these
(III.4)-30
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
disparities and the underachievement they spawn are rooted in the panoply of challenges
confronting communities of color — from poverty and joblessness to the problems of
adult literacy and low expectations. I have suggested ways we can tackle those issues.
But there is a civil rights component to this problem that demands our attention as well.
Education Secretary Richard Riley has called education the "new civil right." I agree.
In my lifetime, we have seen the abolition of legal segregation and overt discrimination
in education. Today, it is economics rather than Jim Crow that perpetuates much ofthe
educational racial divide. But to address the new dynamics of educational disadvantage,
we need a new and broader combination of tools, including aggressive civil rights
enforcement.
There are a number of federal and state laws prohibiting racial discrimination in
educational opportunity, including constitutional provisions of many states that
guarantee a "fair and efficient" system of public education as a right to all their
19
residents. At the federal level. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial
discrimination by any recipient of federal funds, including states and local education
systems. The Title VI regulations, enforced by the Department of Education's Office for
Civil Rights, prohibit not only intentional discrimination, but also policies and practices
that have an unjustified disparate impact by race. This standard is often misunderstood,
but it is of great importance and makes great sense.
(III.4)-31
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
Mere disparities, however troubling, are not the same as unlawful discrimination.
We attack such disparities because to do so is reflects our values, and ultimately
strengthens America. In contrast, unjustified racial disparities are unlawful under our
civil rights statutes. What does this mean? In short:
If a recipient of federal funds has some program or practice that has a
disparate impact by race, they must show two things. First, they have to be
pursuing some sensible, legitimate purpose. And second, if there is some
alternative way to achieve their purposes while avoiding the racial impact,
they have to use the alternative. In other words, the federal government
will not spend money to support programs that unnecessarily perpetuate or
increase America's racial divides.
This is particularly important in the case of educational opportunity. I have asked the
U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to develop guidance on federal
law and policy that reflects the obligations of states and school districts to ensure nondiscrimination in allocating resources among schools and school districts under Title VI.
I have also asked that the Education Department work with the Justice Department to
identify situations in which the federal government can participate in negotiations or, if
necessary litigation, to help ensure that the promise of equal opportunity embedded in
federal civil rights laws is fulfilled in every facet of our school systems.
(III.4)-32
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
There are still blatantly discriminatory situations in which schools that are
identifiably minority are unjustifiably starved for resources. But the more common
problem is that school finance systems are usually heavily dependent on local property
tax revenues. This can make it very difficult for poor schools in poor districts to get the
resources they need to serve poor children. As I noted earlier in the education workplan,
just looking at the dollars spent per pupil can be very misleading. Frequently, high
20
poverty, largely minority schools need more resources to help their students succeed.
For instance, lower class sizes may be
more important for low income
Tracking and Discrimination
children than others.
21
More funds
may also be necessary to support
facilities improvements since 67% of
schools in central cities report having
at least one inadequate structural
feature.
22
In short, the educational
needs in these schools are often
greater. I believe this should be a
factor in judging compliance with the
civil rights laws.
ince 1993, the Office for Civil Rights has
aid particular attention to tracking and the
lacement in special education:
In 1997, the New York City Board of
Education agreed to curb inappropriate
referrals of minority students for special
education and other restrictive special
educational settings. To improve the quality
of services to students with disabilities, the
Board agreed to a multi-faceted strategy that
included parent training regarding special
education procedures, measurement of
learning outcomes, and replication of
successful intervention models for at-risk
students.
In 1995, the Georgia Department of Educatior
adopted new selection criteria for gifted
programs—abandoning sole reliance on IQ
scores, to use a broader set of evaluation
tools. The new method for identifying gifted
students is legally sound, far more
educationally sensible, and includes far more
of minority children.
(III.4)-33
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
R
March 24,1999
esource discrimination is an issue under an old civil rights statute, but it
is an increasingly important obstacle as we recommit ourselves to racial
and ethnic justice. I do not want to abandon, however, the commitment our nation made
to dismantling the lingering effects of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and of discriminatory
isolation imposed on non-black minorities. For that reason, a part of our nation's
workplan in civil rights enforcement must be to support states and school districts who
choose, even absent a court's desegregation order, to do what they can to resist the
residential patterns and socioeconomic forces that too often push our schools towards
what I think of as a "post-civil rights resegregation." Many school leaders recognize that
such patterns of racial isolation are bad for all of our kids, and they make it much more
difficult to build One America. Our civil rights laws must be applied in a way that gives
maximum support to voluntary policies intended to promote integration.
But there is another legal concern. Today, many minority children are racially isolated
through such practices as tracking and assignment to special education classes. These
practices drive the continued segregation of students—even within schools that are
racially diverse—and even within a classroom.
Let me be clear about my position here. The purported purpose of tracking is to help
students by tailoring the educational curriculum to student aptitude. But too often that
purpose is subverted. What I object to are tracking policies which sort children for all or
(III.4)-34
�Part III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
most of the day based on general achievement and behavior rather than on demonstrated
aptitude in particular subjects. This sorting begins as early as elementary school, where
65% of math and science classes are tracked, and is all too frequently correlated with
race and poverty more than with ability. I am opposed to sorting policies that have
resulted in a disproportionate number of African American and Latino students being
23
assigned to low-ability mathematics and science classes, and thereby significantly
under-represented in "gate-keeper" courses—such as eighth-grade algebra or ninth-grade
24
geometry—which are prerequisites to higher level courses. Too often, our practices
leave minority students over represented in special education and low-track, dead-end
courses, and under represented in math, science, and high-track gifted programs.
Moreover, once students are grouped into low-track classes, evidence shows they rarely
move out.
Educators who use tracking as an educational tool are often well-meaning and many
25
consider it to be a useful practice. Few teachers, counselors or schools track students
explicitly on the basis of race. There is evidence, however, that even well-intentioned
tracking policies have limited educational utility and often have harmful consequences.
For instance, low-ability classes are often taught by less-qualified teachers and receive
26
fewer resources. This is where sound education policy and effective civil rights
enforcement come together. If a school's practices fail to meet standards of sound
educational policy, and at the same time work to further disadvantage minority kids, it is
(III.4)-35
�Pan III, Opportunity: Section 4, Civil Rights Enforcement
March 24,1999
a potential issue for law enforcement as well as policy reform. If done well, the two
reinforce each other, and the result is more opportunity and better learning outcomes for
all children. Dead-end tracking is wrong for any child.
So, I encourage educators and policy makers to embark on a national dialogue about
tracking to ensure that our educational policies comport with our goal for equal
educational opportunity, in word and in deed.
As a parent and a former state governor, I have learned that successful educational
reform depends on the resolve and decisions of states, school districts, and individual
schools. The federal government, however, has for over a generation been the insurer of
equal educational opportunities and we have a role to play now. Where racial disparities
in core educational opportunities exist, we must as a nation work to end the practices
that contribute to those inequities. We must not return to a system of "separate and
equal" under a different guise. It did not work in the past, and it will not work now.
Prevent worker exploitation.
(III.4)-36
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Out of Many, One - Draft [Binder] [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 26
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36404"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 2
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg2-026-008-2015