Most participants in the contemporary "renaissance" of human relations are
aware of the expansion of HRCs as a response to the crises of the 1960s. Far fewer are aware that the blueprints for the institutions established at that time were actually developed during and immediately following World War
II as part of the "civic unity movement." In our state, the movement was particularly active, and the California Federation for Civic Unity was organized in 1946 to coordinate and direct the movement. The history of the
CFCU highlights issues which continue to have relevance a half century later - such as the hopes and challenges of the first wave of human relations institutions, and early evidence of the exceptional character of race/ethnic
relations in California.
The seeds of the civic unity movement were sown in Detroit, in the summer of 1943, when the city erupted into several days of race riots leaving 34 dead and more than a thousand wounded. The riots
highlighted fundamental racial inequalities in the United States, and the contrast between Americans fighting for democracy in Europe and fighting each other at home was a poignant symbol of "the American dilemma." It
represented a threat to the war effort, and brought on fears of similar conflicts spreading throughout American cities (which was neither unrealistic nor wholly unrealized). In response, municipal organizations sprung up in
cities nationwide, to be known as - "interracial" or "race relations committees" or, most often, "civic unity councils."
The national leader in institutionalizing such responses was Chicago, which had been the main destination of
African-Americans migrating from the South in previous decades, and in which already existed an infrastructure of race relations researchers, organizations, and foundations. In 1944, Chicago established the Mayor's Commission
on Human Relations the first permanent and publicly -funded HRC in the nation. Equally important was the emergence of the American Council on Race Relations, sponsored by the Julius Rosenwald Fund and linked to a core
of sociologists studying race relations at the University of Chicago. It was the ACRR which spearheaded the movement to organize municipal intergroup relations agencies in the war era, by offering clearinghouse and advisory
services and producing a number of practically-oriented publications for establishing and effectively administering such organizations.
In addition to their Chicago headquarters, the ACRR opened a regional office in San
Francisco, California in recognition of the state's importance to emerging patterns of race relations. Even then, California was more complex than a black/white dichotomy. In the summer of 1943, as whites and blacks
clashed in Detroit and other cities, the most acute crisis on the west coast was the Los Angeles Zoot Suit Riots, in which U.S. sailors on leave passed several nights of violence against Mexican-Americans. In addition, the
main threat of post-war conflicts was directed against Japanese Americans resettling following wartime relocation and internment - a concern which prompted the organization of local Committees for American Principles and Fair Play.
In 1945, a conference jointly sponsored by Fair Play Committees and the regional ACRR recognized the need for a statewide body to coordinate efforts in the field of intergroup relations and civil rights. After a series of
organizational meetings throughout the state, in March of 1946 the California Councils for Civic Unity was established (changed to the CFCU in 1947). Initial documents stated that the CCCU was organized to "assist and
strengthen the activities of organizations which are devoted to the improvement of relations among people of different national, religious and racial origins" and "to provide an organizational structure at the state level through
which large number of local civic unity councils, fair play committees, inter-racial committees, inter-faith, and inter-religious committees and other organizations with similar purposes may exchange experiences and develop
programs to mutual advantage."
Initially, the CCCU operated as an arm of the regional ACRR, utilizing the latter organization's office space, staff, and financial support. The CCCU initiated a program anchored by an annual
statewide convention, regional conferences, and general media and informational services. The most pressing task, however, was to cultivate the statewide network of civic unity councils which the CCCU envisioned
coordinating. While there were some strong existing councils in metropolitan areas (most notably in San Francisco), there were also many which were virtually lifeless, and some which had already disbanded following the
war. Moreover, many of the state's agricultural areas - historically the most problematic in terms of race relations - were untouched by the wartime civic unity movement. During the first two years the CCCU was able to
make steady headway toward that end, although their inability to develop strong ties with Southern California was a continuing frustration.
While ACRR support facilitated early development, and supported the resource-intensive
fieldwork which local organization required, it worked against the emergence of a strong and independent organization. The dangers of dependence were realized in early 1947, when the ACRR's new president (Louis Wirth of the
University of Chicago) shifted the organization's goals: henceforth the ACRR would cease local community activities and focus on research and education in the field of intergroup relations. That reorganization included
closing the western regional office in the summer of 1947, and cessation of all support for the CCCU later that year. At the end of 1947, the CCCU faced a future without its primary source of support, but early successes gave
members reason to be optimistic.
Continuing fieldwork was essential to the viability of the CFCU, but it was a slow process which required substantial funds. In 1948, the Columbia Foundation in San Francisco granted the
CFCU $1,000 as seed money, with the promise of more significant funds if results proved the viability of a statewide coordinating body. The timing proved fortuitous. In April of that year, President Truman's Committee
on Civil Rights released its historic report, "To Secure These Rights." For the time being, the energies of the war era for greater equality had been revived.
In 1949 and 1950, annual Columbia Foundation grants of $7,500
allowed the CFCU to continue its fieldwork - especially in the crucial agricultural areas of the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys. A membership roster from February of 1950 lists among its members two dozen civic unity or
interracial committees from around the state, another sixteen more focused groups (mostly intragroup relations groups such as the NAACP and JACL), as well as fifteen "subscribing" organizations. The Federation seemed poised
to reach a critical mass.
In retrospect, 1950 represented the high water mark of the CFCU. Chronic funding shortages plagued the Federation throughout the early 1950s; board members repeatedly describe the financial
situation as tenuous, essentially putting the organization into a holding pattern. Without resources to continue extensive fieldwork unorganized areas would remain so, and without a denser network the CFCU could neither
financially support nor logically justify its claim to be a statewide coordinating body. Worse still, some of the councils which had been cultivated earlier were becoming inactive and disbanding: San Bernardino and Santa
Barbara in 1950; Richmond in 1952. Without constant attention, the network began to disintegrate. As early as 1952, participating members had begun to question whether the CFCU was still serving any purpose, and in
1956, the CFCU itself formally disbanded.
While the CFCU addressed a crucial institutional vacuum, the challenges which it faced were ultimately larger than the resources which it could bring to bear to achieve the task.
There were a number of closely interrelated challenges which compounded its troubles - some endemic to organizations in their field, and some unique. Here I will review several of the most intractable.
California is highly
resistant to coordination; for a new and poorly funded organization the task was overwhelming. The CFCU was always strongest in northern California; it experienced hopeful successes in the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys;
Southern California remained only loosely connected. Prior organizational structures in Southern California often perceived the CFCU as a threat, or with indifference - most notably the Los Angeles County Conference on
Community Relations. While continually trying to work out a mutually beneficial relationship, the LACCCR continued to see the CFCU primarily as a northern California enterprise - which proved to be self-fulfilling.
The CFCU
was never able to secure a stable and sufficient source of funding. It collected limited funds from member organization dues, and relied as well on individual memberships and donations, but those were never sufficient to fund
the work necessary to cultivate a statewide infrastructure. After the ACRR and Columbia sources dried up, the CFCU was never above a hand-to-mouth existence.
It was never clear whether the CFCU would exist only to service
member organizations, or would be an action group in its own right. Those confusions were most evident in conflicts over activities in the area of legislation, which represented central concerns in the field of race relations
and civil rights in the early 1950s. The coordination of legislative activities seemed a natural role for the CFCU, but such involvement had threatening implications for their tax status. On the other had, inactivity
threatened to make the CFCU into "a study club for the education of its own members" (in the president's words). The 1953 convention voted to pursue a legislative program, leading to the withdrawal of member organizations
fearing for their own tax status.
Exacerbating all of the problems was the changing political climate. While fears of wartime conflicts opened space for advances (e.g. the March on Washington Movement), the early 1950s were
much more inhospitable. McCarthyism chilled the political climate, and race relations work was implicitly (or often explicitly) associated with Communism. Concerns over such associations were the focus of much debate in
the CFCU, and undoubtedly contributed to resource shortages.
