• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • About
  • Press Room
  • Poverty & Race Journal
  • Donate
  • Publications
    • PRRAC Publications & PRRAC Authors
    • PRRAC Policy Briefs
    • PRRAC Advocacy Resources
  • Events
  • Contact

PRRAC — Connecting Research to Advocacy

Poverty & Race Research Action Council

MENUMENU
  • Fair Housing
    • Fair Housing Homepage
    • Federal Housing Advocacy – by Program
    • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
    • Housing Mobility (Section 8)
    • Low Income Housing Tax Credit
    • Fair Housing and Community Development
  • School Diversity
  • Environmental Justice
  • Special Projects
    • Civil Rights History
    • Civil Rights & The Administrative State
    • Housing-School Nexus
    • International Human Rights and U.S. Civil Rights Policy
    • One Nation Indivisible: School Diversity, Immigrant Integration, and Multi-Racial Coalitions
    • PRRAC in the Courts
    • CarsonWatch
    • Alliance Housing Justice
  • Search
    • Search

You are here: Home / Browse PRRAC Content / Policy Analyses / The CERD Treaty and U.S. Civil Rights Law (June 2011)

The CERD Treaty and U.S. Civil Rights Law (June 2011)

June 1, 2011 by

Americans are rightly proud of their civil rights laws, adopted in the 1960s in response to a broad based domestic Civil Rights Movement and increasing international pressure to undo officially sanctioned discrimination and segregation. As part of that same international movement, in 1965 the U.N. adopted a broad human rights treaty to address racial discrimination – the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). CERD was initially signed by the U.S. in 1966 and later ratified by the Senate in 1994. It is one of only three international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the U.S., and it is binding on the states and the federal government under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Because the U.S. has a strong civil rights legal tradition, many public officials assume that we are automatically in compliance with CERD. But this is not the case. The CERD treaty goes well beyond the requirements of U.S. law in several important ways, and several recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have further diluted our civil rights protections, calling into question our compliance with our CERD treaty obligations.

How do our civil rights laws comply or fall short?

The CERD treaty prohibits policies that have a discriminatory impact on people of color, even where there is no intent to discriminate. This is also true of several key U.S. laws, including Title VII (fair employment), Title VIII (fair housing), and Title VI (non-discrimination in government-funded programs and activities). However, in the 2001 Sandoval case, the Supreme Court eliminated the private right of action to bring Title VI discriminatory impact claims in court, requiring private parties to instead pursue administrative remedies.1 This has made it much harder to bring claims of structural discrimination in health care, education, environmental justice, transit funding, and other areas, and is in violation of the CERD treaty’s insistence that victims of discrimination should have a judicial enforcement mechanism available.2

The CERD treaty applies to all levels of government – federal, state and local. But Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has never been enforceable against the federal government – it can only be used to address discriminatory practices by state and local government grantees.

The CERD treaty embodies an obligation not just to avoid policies with a discriminatory impact, but also to affirmatively take action to address racial disparities in outcomes for people of color, both within government programs and in society at large. This principle of affirmative obligations to redress past discriminatory practices and present day outcomes is largely absent from federal civil rights law (with the notable exception of the Fair Housing Act, which calls on the government to “affirmatively further” fair housing).

The CERD treaty requires its signatories to use carefully tailored race-conscious measures to redress past racial discrimination and continuing racial disparities. But the U.S. Supreme Court has recently been undermining this basic principle of our civil rights law by making it harder for government to use race as a factor in student assignment to promote voluntary racial integration.3

The CERD Committee has recommended a government-wide “Plan of Action” to implement CERD, and a central agency or commission to educate the public and monitor treaty compliance. No such mechanisms exist in the U.S.

Extending beyond the usual single-issue approach of U.S. anti-discrimination law, the CERD Committee has also recognized the interdependence of race with other social principles such as gender and class. In a special recommendation in 2000, the Committee acknowledged the gender-related dimensions of racial discrimination, thereby underscoring the fact that racial discrimination is not always experienced by women and men equally or in the same ways. With this recommendation, the Committee challenges signatories to address the complex, intersectional causes of disparate racial effects.

Civil rights enforcement vs. human rights compliance: the Obama Administration has done a good job of reviving the dormant civil rights enforcement units within each federal agency that are responsible for investigating complaints of discrimination by state and local recipients of federal funds,4 and the revived Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is once again at the forefront of civil rights enforcement.5

But civil rights enforcement is only a part of compliance with the CERD treaty – the federal government is also supposed to be addressing racial disparities and impacts in the way it spends its own money and runs its domestic programs (including federal programs affecting health, education, labor, environment, criminal justice, housing, transportation, etc). The federal government is still falling short of its CERD obligations in this area.

 

  1. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). Title VI racial impact claims may still be brought to court by the U.S. Department of Justice.
  2. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art. 6, G.A. res. 2106 (XX), Annex, 20 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 14) at 47, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966). 660 U.N.T.S. 195, entered into force Jan. 4, 1969
  3. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) 5 In spite of overall progress, some federal agencies are lagging behind in this area – for example, the Department of Treasury still has no anti-discrimination regulations as required by Title VI.
  4. In spite of overall progress, some federal agencies are lagging behind in this area – for example, the Department of Treasury still has no anti-discrimination regulations as required by Title VI.
  5. In regard to the compliance record of other divisions of the Department of Justice, see generally, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention: Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 72d Sess., U.N. Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/6 (Feb. 2008).

Filed Under: Policy Analyses, Policy Briefs Tagged With: CERD, cerd committee, cerd treaty, civil rights, domestic programs, federal programs, plan of action

You might also like…

The 2020 Democratic Candidates’ Positions on School Diversity & Related Educational Equity Issues (Philip Tegeler, Abi Hollinger, & Lily Milwit, November 2019)
The Need for a National Housing Mobility Infrastructure (March 2016)

Primary Sidebar

PRRAC Updates

PRRAC Update (January 14, 2021): Cashin on “Whitelash”; More HUD and ED Developments

PRRAC Update (December 22, 2020): 30th Anniversary Issue; and Another Victory for School Integration

PRRAC Update (December 10, 2020): Recommendations for a new AFFH rule + school integration goals for the first 100 days

Previous Updates...

PRRAC in the News

Billions in School Construction in CT Hasn’t Made a Dent in Segregation — But This Year, Things Could Be Different (Connecticut Mirror)

January 4, 2021

Education Dept. Gets $73.5 Billion in Funding Deal That Ends Ban on Federal Aid for Busing (Education Week)

December 22, 2020

Massachusetts’ Public Schools are Highly Segregated. It’s Time We Treated That Like the Crisis It Is (Boston Globe)

December 11, 2020

Opinion: A Truly Life-Changing Voucher Program is Within Reach for Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (Cleveland.com)

October 12, 2020

Previous Posts...

PRRAC on Twitter

Tweets by @PRRAC_DC

Poverty & Race Journal

Footer

PRRAC – Poverty & Race Research Action Council

The Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) is a civil rights law and policy organization based in Washington, D.C. Our mission is to promote research-based advocacy strategies to address structural inequality and disrupt the systems that disadvantage low-income people of color. PRRAC was founded in 1989, through an initiative of major civil rights, civil liberties, and anti-poverty groups seeking to connect advocates with social scientists working at the intersection of race and poverty…Read More

Archives

Resources at PRRAC

  • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fair Housing
  • Fair Housing & Community Development
  • Low Income Housing Tax Credit
  • Poverty & Race Journal
  • PRRAC Update
  • School Diversity
  • Housing Choice Voucher Mobility
  • PRRAC in The Courts

Copyright © 2021 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in var _ctct_m = "7608c7e98e90af7d6ba8b5fd4d901424"; //static.ctctcdn.com/js/signup-form-widget/current/signup-form-widget.min.js

PRRAC — Connecting Research to Advocacy

  • Fair Housing
    • Fair Housing Homepage
    • Federal Housing Advocacy – by Program
    • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
    • Housing Mobility (Section 8)
    • Low Income Housing Tax Credit
    • Fair Housing and Community Development
  • School Diversity
  • Environmental Justice
  • Special Projects
    • Civil Rights History
    • Civil Rights & The Administrative State
    • Housing-School Nexus
    • International Human Rights and U.S. Civil Rights Policy
    • One Nation Indivisible: School Diversity, Immigrant Integration, and Multi-Racial Coalitions
    • PRRAC in the Courts
    • CarsonWatch
    • Alliance Housing Justice
  • Search
  • About
  • Press Room
  • Poverty & Race Journal
  • Donate
  • Publications
    • PRRAC Publications & PRRAC Authors
    • PRRAC Policy Briefs
    • PRRAC Advocacy Resources
  • Events
  • Contact