Books in Brief

Open Occupancy vs. Forced Housing under the Fourteenth Amendment, edited by Alfred Avins (Bookmailer, $6.00). In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts could not enforce restrictive racial convenants, to the presumed dismay of America’s most famous restrictive convenantor, Lyndon B. Johnson. Legislation in many states has since been passed affirmatively requiring that persons renting or selling homes and apartments not discriminate between buyers on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin. On November 20, 1962, President Kennedy signed an order prohibiting such discrimination in housing built or purchased with federal aid, such as loans or mortgages. This book is a very useful collection of learning on the legal, economic and sociological aspects of the resulting situation. It is a pretty one-sided presentation, but that side is presented quite intelligently by a generally distinguished group of panelists. A convincing demonstration is made that legal efforts to achieve compulsory integration in housing create more problems than they solve, and do serious damage to our constitutional tradition.

J. D. Mahoney

Featured Tags

Alexis de Tocqueville

John F. Kennedy

Open Occupancy vs. Forced Housing under the Fourteenth Amendment, edited by Alfred Avins (Bookmailer, $6.00). In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts could not enforce restrictive racial convenants, to the presumed dismay of America’s most famous restrictive convenantor, Lyndon B. Johnson. Legislation in many states has since been passed affirmatively requiring that persons renting or selling homes and apartments not discriminate between buyers on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin. On November 20, 1962, President Kennedy signed an order prohibiting such discrimination in housing built or purchased with federal aid, such as loans or mortgages. This book is a very useful collection of learning on the legal, economic and sociological aspects of the resulting situation. It is a pretty one-sided presentation, but that side is presented quite intelligently by a generally distinguished group of panelists. A convincing demonstration is made that legal efforts to achieve compulsory integration in housing create more problems than they solve, and do serious damage to our constitutional tradition.

J. D. Mahoney