Danger Lies Ahead on Civil Rights

The stunning success of the civil rights movement was that racism and segregation were declared undemocratic, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional. But now, overturning 37 years of civil rights precedent, the Supreme Court has ruled that “private parties” no longer can bring civil rights claims against local and state governments unless they can prove intentional discrimination. This decision could have serious consequences on Los Angeles’ public transportation system.

In overturning an Alabama case that challenged English-only drivers’ license tests, five justices have restricted major provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The decision makes it more difficult for those suffering discrimination to use the remedies of the act’s Title VI, which prohibits government agencies receiving federal funds from delivering services or allocating funds in a racially discriminatory manner.

There are valiant efforts by civil rights lawyers to challenge and limit the recent Supreme Court ruling, but the reactionary trajectory is undeniable. On the ground level, in the streets, on the buses, many people of color read the news and ask, “Do I really have any rights in this country?”

The national implications are staggering. The Bush administration seems intent on reestablishing the separate and unequal racial politics of segregation. To prevent this, Congress must strengthen the Civil Rights Act. If this does not happen, we need a massive national campaign of civil disobedience: marches, sit-ins, building occupations.

Let’s take the local example concerning buses. For more than a year, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has challenged a compromise order from the federal district court, based on the provisions of a civil rights consent decree with the Bus Riders Union, directing the MTA to buy 350 buses. Now, the MTA has asked the courts to “terminate” the consent decree altogether, using the Alabama case as its latest pretext to evade its contractual and moral obligations.

The MTA has no legal or ethical basis to justify this. The Bus Riders Union’s lawsuit was based on intentional discrimination, and the MTA has claimed all along that it agreed to the consent decree as a binding contract, though not an admission of past discrimination.

We believe the MTA’s specious appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will be rejected. To their credit, both mayoral candidates have pledged to drop any appeals, buy the buses and work constructively with the Bus Riders Union. Still, the MTA’s defiant and intentional discrimination persists and must be challenged.

The members of the MTA board who are trying to “terminate” the consent decree are not modern-day incarnations of Bull Connor or Sam Yorty. They include county Supervisors Yvonne Brathwaite Burke and Gloria Molina, beneficiaries of the risks and suffering others endured for civil rights, as well as Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Mayor Richard Riordan, who have stated that they care about civil rights and the poor.

The racism we are talking about is institutional, not personal. We want to change the MTA policies that discriminate against 400,000 overwhelmingly minority bus riders.

Today at the MTA board meeting, the Bus Riders Union and its community allies will ask board members to explain why they are trying to “terminate” a signed consent decree. We also will ask them again to purchase 350 new buses and end their challenges to the authority of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The civil rights movement began as a revolutionary challenge to U.S. society--not just a fight for equality, but an ethical challenge to the complex institutional and cultural manifestations of racism rooted in the economy. A revitalized civil rights movement must include the most profound moral challenge to churches, synagogues, labor unions, community groups and the political parties to stand up against the unmitigated attacks on the minority poor. There is the danger of reestablishing racial discrimination as national policy. Who will stand up to fight that? Who will join us?