Integration in Public and Private Housing
| Date | 01 March 1956 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271625630400112 |
| Published date | 01 March 1956 |
| Author | Robert C. Weaver |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
86
Integration
in
Public
and
Private
Housing
RESIDENTIAL
racial
patterns
as-
sulne
new
significance
in
light
of
recent
decisions
of
the
Supreme
Court
banning
segregation
in
public
schools.
Long
before
this
action,
concentration
of
nonwhites
in
ghettos
had
nullified
legal
prohibitions
above
the
Mason-
Dixon
line
on
racially
separate
schools.
After
the
decisions,
residential
segrega-
tion
became
a
principal
proposal
for
&dquo;getting
around&dquo;
the
Court’s decrees
in
the
South.
In
all
regions
of
the
nation,
restriction
of
colored
citizens
to
certain
areas
creates
de
facto
separate
neighbor-
hoods
and
public
facilities-including
schools-thereby
delaying
participation
and
acceptance
of
nonwhites
in
the
edu-
cational,
political,
economic,
and
social
aspects
of
American
life.
Integration
in
housing,
as
in
other
matters,
is
more
than
proximity
and
spatial
patterns.
It
involves
casual
as-
sociations
between
peoples
of
different
races
and
color.
It
is
complete
when
people
of
minority
and
majority
groups
are
treated
as
individuals
with
no
con-
scious
concern
for
their
ethnic
back-
ground.
Had
we
achieved
this
state,
there
would
be
no
occasion
for
the
present
issue
of
THE
ANNALS.
PUBLICLY
ASSISTED,
LOW-RENT
HOUSING
The
federal
public
housing
program
affords
the
most
complete
quantitative
data
on
the
movement
toward
desegre-
gation
in
housing.
From
the
beginning
of
the
program,
there
was
widespread
minority
group
participation
at
the
same
time
that
the
issue
of
residential
segre-
gation
was
seldom
raised
in
the
South
and
was
avoided
in
the
North.’
By
the
end
of
World
War
II,
northern
housing
authorities
had
made
some
progress
toward
adoption
of
nonsegregation
poli-
cies.2
More
recently,
the
trend
has
con-
tinued
at
an
accelerated
rate,
including
border
cities
such
as
Baltimore,
St.
Louis,
Washington,
and
Wilmington.
Figures
presented
in
Table
1
indicate
that
local
authorities
(or
states)
may
adopt
open-occupancy
policies
and
still
not
effect
compliance.
Where
a
public
housing
development
is
located
in,
or
contiguous
to,
an
existing,
established
area
of
nonwhite
concentration,
it
al-
most
invariably
becomes
an
all-minority
group
project.
This
is
occasioned
by
the
pressure
of
nonwhites
to
get
into
the
unit
and
the
disinclination
of
whites
to
enter
and
remain
in
a
predominantly
colored
community.
In
practice,
it
is
difficult
to
maintain
a
racially
mixed
pattern
of
living
once
the
proportion
of
nonwhite
tenants
exceeds
40
to
60
per
cent.
Also,
it
is
more
difficult
to
intro-
duce
white
tenants
into
a
previously
all-
Negro
or
predominantly
Negro
public
housing
project
than
to
bring
nonwhites
into
a
previously
all-white
development.
Either
of
these
changes
presents
more
problems
than
establishing
integrated
patterns
of
living
at
the
outset.
By
March
1955
there
were
nine
states
with
open-occupancy
policies
governing
1
Robert
C.
Weaver,
The
Negro
Ghetto
(New
York:
Harcourt,
Brace
and
Co.,
1948),
pp.
75-76.
Public
housing
prior
to
World
War
II
served
to
strengthen
residential
segregation
in
the
North.
2
Ibid.,
Chap.
X;
Charles
Abrams,
Forbidden
Neighbors
(New
York:
Harper
&
Brothers,
1955),
Chap.
XXII.
To continue reading
Request your trial