The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) is an independent federal agency that addresses civil rights issues and discrimination complaints based on age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, or sex, in the fields of education, employment, housing, and voting rights, and serves as a watchdog over government policies and the administration of justice in respect to denial of equal protection under the law due to discrimination.

The history of the USCCR has been plagued by controversy and debate, with criticism raised that it’s been ineptly managed, in financial disarray, and consumed by partisan wrangling, which too frequently prevents crucial work from getting done. The Commission was meant to be bipartisan, with four Republican members and four Democratic members, but in 2007 President George W. Bush managed to shift the balance to six Republicans and only two Democrats by having two Republican members re-register as Independents and then appointing two more Republicans to fill the spaces left by two departing Democrats. Currently, the Commission is made up of one Republican, three Independents, and four Democrats (two of whom were appointed by President Barack Obama).

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was the first such measure to pass Congress since the adoption of the federal civil rights laws of 1875. Signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 29, 1957, the Act mandated that the Commission investigate allegations that citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reasons of their color, race, religion, or national origin.

However, because many of the politicians at the time were not fully behind the pursuits the Act called for, the Commission’s early work, rather than generating a lot of specific changes, instead played a major role in providing the foundation for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the landmark, much more comprehensive, Civil Rights Act of 1964. These acts were followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the 1968 Fair Housing Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Commission’s responsibilities were also re-addressed and re-configured by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Acts of 1983 and 1991, and the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994 (pdf).

According to USASpending.gov, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) spent $4,887,127 on 409 contractor transactions this decade. The top five services the agency paid for were housing ($1,535,824), office leasing ($1,271,976), accounting ($415,288), library services ($412,874), and printing/binding ($173,517).

The top five contractors providing services to USCCR between 2002 and 2011 were:

 Performance and Accountability Report FY 2011 (pdf)

Compliance Standards for Title IX

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) provoked controversy in 2010 when it released a report recommending less stringent compliance standards for Title IX—the program to prevent gender discrimination in sports in schools—due to the negative impact it was having on men’s athletics.

The commission cited instances of colleges and universities dropping men’s sports programs (rather than adding women’s athletic programs) in order to reach Title IX compliance on proportionality.

Some experts, such as Dr. John Cheslock, a professor and senior research associate at Pennsylvania State University, disagreed with the commission’s findings. Cheslock, who had conducted extensive research on Title IX’s impact, said enforcement of the landmark legislation, which was passed in 1972, had not hurt participation in men’s sports.

If anything, an unintended consequence of the federal mandate for equality in college sports was the loss of coaching positions for women. Before Title IX, 90% of head coaches in women’s sports were women. That percentage had fallen considerably in subsequent years, down to 43%.

Title IX Controversy Continues (by Michael Rietmulder, Minnesota Daily)

Title IX Controversy (Wikipedia)

A Move Toward Common Sense on Title IX (by Allison Kasic, Minding the Campus)

Title IX and Athletics: A Case Study of Perverse Incentives and Unintended Consequences (by Allison Kasic, Independent Women’s Forum) (pdf)

Title IX Turning 40 (University of Minnesota)

Reverse Racism in the CCR over Question of Voter Harassment by New Black Panthers

The USCCR became the focus of controversy in 2010 when one of its commissioners stormed out of a meeting over the Obama administration’s handling of accusations of voter intimidation when it dropped a lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party following the 2008 election.

On Election Day, two New Black Panther Party members were captured on video standing in front of a Philadelphia polling place. One carried a nightstick and the two verbally harassed voters. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush decided not to pursue a criminal case against the men, concluding there was not enough evidence against them. But a federal lawsuit was launched against the party.

Subsequently, the Justice Department decided to drop most of the lawsuit. This decision provoked criticism in 2010 from conservative appointees on the commission, who accused the administration of “possible unequal administration of justice,” as well as “pervasive hostility” against discrimination and voter intimidation claims by whites.

Seeking to make it into a larger scandal, the conservative commissioners called a USCCR meeting on short notice. With two commissioners missing, Democratic commissioner Michael Yaki walked out so that they could not meet a quorum, thus delaying a vote on the matter. “I do not feel it is my responsibility to make quorum for this kangaroo court, just so they can get their vote done,” Yaki told reporters outside the meeting.

By the following year, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded an investigation into the controversy. It found politics played no role in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case.

The OPR reviewed thousands of pages of internal emails and notes and conducted more than 40 interviews with department staff members. It reported that “department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment” and that the voter-intimidation case against the Panthers was dismissed on “a good faith assessment of the law” and “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”

Bias Led To 'Gutting' of New Black Panthers Case, Justice Official Says (by Jerry Markon and Krissah Thompson, Washington Post)

Do We Need a Commission on Civil Rights? (by Adam Serwer, American Prospect)

Report Clears Justice Department in Black Panther Case (by Krissah Thompson, Washington Post)

New Black Panther Case Spurs Civil Rights Commission to Challenge DOJ (by Jan Crawford, CBS News)

U.S. Civil Rights Commission Sidetracked By Member's Protest (by Paul Courson, CNN)

Dem Prevents Civil Rights Panel Vote On New Black Panther Report (VIDEO) (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

Remember The Black Panther “Voter Intimidation” Case? Yea, It Really Was Small Potatoes (by Doug Mataconis, Outside the Beltway)

Conservatives Claim Costly Quotas Are Hidden in Dodd-Frank

Conservative members of the USCCR blasted the Wall Street reform bill (dubbed Dodd-Frank) in July 2010 claiming it would impose racial and gender quotas on financial institutions.

The commissioners wrote a letter to senior Democratic leaders, including Vice President Joe Biden, calling for lawmakers to remove language buried within the massive bill that contained race- and gender-employment provisions.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who served as chief of staff for former President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, echoed the criticism, saying Dodd-Frank represented a “dramatic change in employment legislation.” Even subcontractors—down to the cleaning crews and office-party caterers—would have to prove that they meet racial and gender quotas.

One point of concern was Section 342 of the bill, which called for the establishment of an “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion” in 29 federal bureaus and offices. These included 10 offices of the Department of the Treasury, plus the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Housing Finance Agency, each of the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Quotas Hidden in Bank Reform Bill Will Cost Taxpayers Millions (by David Patten, NewsMax)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights Demands Changes To Democrats’ Financial Reform Bill (by Caroline May, Daily Caller)

Controversy over September 2010 CCR Meeting Debating Its Own Future

Civil rights leaders largely boycotted a one-day conference hosted in 2010 by the USCCR, calling it a “sham.”

One of the conference topics under discussion was “The Future of the Civil Rights Commission.” Conservatives had longed criticized the commission, and with appointees of President George W. Bush still dominating it, the debate was viewed by those on the left as another attempt to discredit the government body.

With the conference debating whether the commission “has outlived its usefulness,” civil rights advocates decided to skip the event.

Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said he would skip the conference because “it’s a sham.” He also said the commission at that time had become “a political arm of the conservative movement in America.” The subject of whether the commission should be disbanded had come up at that time because the era of conservative control over it would be ending under President Barack Obama.

Civil Rights Leader Dismisses The Conservative US Commission on Civil Rights’ Conference As ‘A Sham’ (by Tanya Somanader, Think Progress)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights To Debate Its Own Existence After Promoting Conservative Values (by Ryan Reilly, TPM)

Commission Hires Vote Suppressor to Monitor 2008 Election

President George W. Bush’s nomination of anti-voting rights advocate Hans A. von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission provoked such an outcry that his nomination had to be withdrawn. However, von Spakovsky slipped back into the picture when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hired him as a consultant to help monitor the 2008 election. He has since joined the conservative Heritage Foundation as a fellow and political commentator.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Secretly Hires Vote Suppressor von Spakovsky to Oversee ’08 Election (by Brad Friedman, Brad Blog)

Civil Rights Panel Faulted on Hiring Choice (by Darryl Fears, Washington Post)

He’s Baaaack: Civil Rights Commission Hires Spakovsky to Work on Voting Rights (by Kate Klonick, TPM Muckraker)

Justice Department Attorneys Oppose Hans von Spakovsky (pdf) (statement to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration)

President Bush Did End Run around Law Requiring Bipartisanship

The rules of the Commission state that, in order to maintain bipartisanship, no more than four members can come from any party. This was generally assumed to mean that there would always be four Republican members and four Democratic members. Thwarted in their attempt to impose a conservative agenda on the Commission, the Bush administration came up with a novel tactic to subvert the intention of the law. When two Democratic commissioners completed their terms, two of the Republican members re-registered as Independents, and President Bush replaced the departing Democrats with two more Republicans. As a result, there was an outcry, which grew with the naming in July 2008 of Hans A. von Spakovsky as a Special Assistant to the Commission, because von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, was known for advocating the approval of a Georgia voter identification law that many claim made it difficult for the poor and elderly to vote. Under the Obama administration, there has been an attempt to return the Commission to proper bipartisanship.

Maneuver gave Bush a conservative rights panel (by Charlie Savage, Boston Globe)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights To Debate Its Own Existence After Promoting Conservative Values (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

New White House Picks (Almost) Rebalance Civil Rights Commission (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

Should the USCCR be Changed to U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights?

Following the release of a 2010 United Nations report examining the human rights of African Americans, liberal groups called upon the Obama administration to change the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). In addition to protecting civil rights, advocates wanted the commission’s mission to include human rights.

Pro:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was one supporter calling for the establishment of the U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights. The ACLU noted the U.S. government had taken some steps to promote the rights of people of African descent. But it needed to do more to bring the U.S. into compliance with international treaty obligations affecting human rights.

The UN report stated that people of African descent in the U.S. were continuing to face unequal access to quality education, electoral disenfranchisement, and discrimination in the justice and legal systems, among other issues.

Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said, “In order to lead by example, it is imperative that the U.S. establish monitoring mechanisms to uphold civil and human rights in the U.S. The Obama administration should work with Congress to reform the existing U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to include a mandate to monitor our human rights treaty obligations.”

The Leadership Conference, a leading civil rights organization, also advocated for reforming the commission, saying it had “lost its way and had become a political voice, not an independent one.”

U.N. Report Highlights Need For U.S. Civil And Human Rights Commission (American Civil Liberties Union)

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Restoring the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (The Leadership Conference)

Con:

Critics responded to the proposal by claiming it was not what it appeared to be and that it might accomplish the opposite of its stated intentions. They argued expanding the commission’s mandate to include human rights would dilute its “core focus on invidious discrimination; that it would overburden an agency already long challenged by budgetary constraints; and that it would serve as a back-door means of advancing economic redistributionism in the name of human rights.”

In addition, the commission in its new form would be permitted to use taxpayer funds to lobby for legislation or treaties, critics claimed.

Furthermore, the proposal would change the process for appointing commissioners and executive staff. This would mean the Obama administration could replace incumbent holdovers in the positions of staff director and general counsel. Critics charged this would “unfairly enable Democratic officials to terminate holdovers ahead of the expiration of their terms,” which could likely “generate the same kind of partisan politicization it is intended to avert.”

The Proposal to Establish a U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights (by Kenneth Marcus, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies)

Gerald A. Reynolds

Gerald A. Reynolds took over as chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on December 6, 2004, and served a six-year term. Reynolds received a BA in History from the City University of New York at York College, and a law degree from Boston University School of Law. He practiced law with Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, worked as a legal analyst for the Center for Equal Opportunity, and served as President of the Center for New Black Leadership. He also was on the National Advisory Board of Project 21, and was Senior Regulatory Counsel for the Kansas City Power & Light Company. In March 2002, President Bush appointed Reynolds, who once described affirmative action as a “big lie,” to be Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office for Civil Rights. He went on to become Deputy Associate General in the U.S. Department of Justice, and then returned to Kansas City Power & Light Company, as Assistant General Counsel, a job he still currently holds.

Reynolds edited the book, Race and the Criminal Justice System: How Race Affects Jury Trials, and has written for several newspapers and magazines.

In 2007 Reynolds was appointed a member of the Justice Advisory Committee for Rudy Giuliani’s Presidential Committee.

Civil Rights Commissioner Marches in Different Time (by Darryl Fears, Washington Post)

Shift Toward Skepticism for Civil Rights Panel (by Randal C. Archibold, New York Times)

Mary Francis Berry (1993-2004)