The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

• Table of Contents
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• I. Creating the Commission
• II. The Commission’s Early Years
• III. The 60s: Laying the Foundation for Legislation
• IV. The 70s: School Desegregation and an Expanded Mandate
• V. The 80s: Dismantling the Commission
• VI. The 90s: The Commission Devolves
• VII. The Post-Millennial Commission
• Conclusion
• Recommendations
• Acknowledgements

Recommendations for Reform

• The commission will consist of seven members. The members will serve four-year staggered terms. Each commissioner will be appointed by the President, and subject to Senate confirmation. Staff director and general counsel will be career Senior Executive Service positions.

As this report outlines, since its inception, there have been attempts by advocates and some in Congress to insulate the commission from political manipulation. These efforts have been intermittently successful. However, the change in the 1980s from commissioners appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate to the current model of split presidential/ congressional appointments without oversight through a public hearing has dramatically eroded the commission’s real and perceived independence. This recommendation, to restore the advice and consent system, reflects a realization that while no system of appointment is perfect, the prior system is generally better at ensuring more independent and less polarizing appointments, in large part because of the requirement that each nominee and the selection process be subject to a public hearing.

• Create a civil rights unit as part of the Government Accountability Office to focus on monitoring federal agency compliance with and enforcement of federal civil rights laws.

When the civil rights commission was created, there was no federal civil rights infrastructure. The commissions work over the years helped establish that. Federal laws were passed and agencies and agency departments were created in whole or in part to address the vexing issues of civil rights and equal opportunity. Over time, the commission took on the role of monitoring federal agency compliance with and enforcement of federal civil rights laws, in addition to its role of fact-finding and reporting on emerging issues and substantive needs. The work of monitoring the federal government’s work to meet its legal obligations to protect civil rights is very resource intensive, requires a high level of expertise, and is easily susceptible to political manipulation.

At the time of the commission’s creation, there was no entity at the federal level charged with fact-finding and investigation of agency compliance with any federal laws. All that changed in the 1970s with the creation of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO was established to be an outside, independent, credible watchdog for the federal government. It is, and is perceived to be by both Congress and by advocates, an objective and honest broker on factual questions regarding enforcement, policy, and accountability. They are what we need: credible, non-partisan researchers who can make sure that federal civil rights policy is not made in a fact-free world.

This recommendation would harness the expertise, credibility and independence of the GAO to carry out the fact-finding and monitoring functions of the current commission; i.e., (1) study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice and (2) monitor the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws by the various federal agencies, including the issuance of periodic reports on the status of such compliance. This new focus would fit well within GAO’s existing mandate to "report on how well government programs are meeting their objectives," and "performing policy analyses and outlining options for congressional consideration." GAO also has offices across the country to assist with their fact-finding function.

• Add to the commission’s mandate (i.e., discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, gender, or disability) an examination of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity has long been a problem in almost every sector of American life, from employment to housing to education policy. At the same time, there is not enough research, fact-finding, and focus on these issues by the federal government. It is long overdue that the commission’s mandate be amended to include examination of the state of equality for these groups and better ways to ensure protection of their civil rights.

• The commission shall continue to have the authority to hold hearings across the country to better understand the landscape of equal opportunity involving various regions and protected groups. Based on these hearings, and other information, the commission will have the responsibility to make policy recommendations to the president and Congress. The commission will retain its authority to subpoena witnesses to participate in such hearings.

An important goal of this reform is to ensure that there remains a high level government agency with both the ability to utilize its subpoena power and conduct hearings on important civil and human rights issues and the stature to have that voice effectively heard. The public hearing was long a powerful education and public awareness tool for the commission, and served to bring civil rights issues from around the country into clear relief for national policymakers. Thus, the reformed commission must retain this important fact-finding role and authority. The new commission will also continue to serve as a clearinghouse for reports and other information from across the country on civil and human rights, and will be in a position to make recommendations to policymakers on ways to improve enforcement and oversight.

• The name of the commission shall be the United States Commission on Civil and Human Rights.

The primary focus of the civil rights movement in the United States has been on strengthening and enforcing domestic laws to achieve equal opportunity here at home. However, part of the longstanding tradition of the movement has been to see our domestic civil rights agenda as part of the larger global movement for human rights. For example, in 1947 U.S. civil rights groups, led by the NAACP, presented one of the very first individual human rights appeals ever submitted to the United Nations. They understood then what we see clearer now: civil rights and human rights have always been intertwined.

At the heart of the civil rights movements is the basic human dignity of all people and their right to live in freedom with justice and equal opportunity. In this global age, the interdependency of nations, economies, and people is growing exponentially. Events in other parts of the world affect all of us, just as events here in the United States affect the rest of the world.

The connection between civil and human rights has been made clearer in recent years with the ratification by the United States of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. These treaties apply fully to our domestic life and therefore must be part of our government’s civil rights agenda.

Changing the commission’s name to reflect the human rights dimension of its work would make more explicit its obligation to examine U.S.

compliance with these international treaties as part of its existing mandate to examine compliance with civil rights laws. Also, a United States Commission on Civil and Human Rights could help bolster the United States’ leadership role in protecting human rights around the world.

Our national monitoring body for civil rights must explicitly recognize, understand, and cultivate the human rights dimension to its work. The name change is a good first step.

• The commission shall provide support for state and local governmental efforts.

To be most effective, the commission should work in close coordination with, and support , civil and human rights efforts in the states, including collaboration with state and local human rights and human relations commissions. All but three states have at least one human rights or human relations commission, and many have commissions operating in their cities and counties. These agencies can play a critical role in ensuring civil and human rights compliance at the state and local level. Thus, the commission should have the mandate of supporting their work and the work of other relevant state and local agencies, including through education and training initiatives and by designating staff to coordinate state and local efforts with the commission’s own.

Next Section: Acknowledgements